Anıl Murat Öztürk, Onur Süer, Ömer Akçalı, Figen Govsa, Mehmet Asım Özer

Patient-specific three-dimensional printing spine model for surgical planning in AO spine type-C fracture posterior long-segment fixation

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare duration of surgery, intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure, blood loss and the accuracy of pedicular screw placement between 3D model-assisted surgery and conventional surgery for AO spinal C-type injuries. Methods: In this study 32 patients who were admitted with thoracolumbar AO spinal C-type injuries were included. These patients were divided randomly into two groups of 16 where one group was operated on using conventional surgery and the other group was operated on using 3D model-assisted surgery. During surgery, instrumentation time, amount of blood loss and intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure were recorded. Moreover, the status of the screws in the pedicles was assessed as described by Learch and Wiesner’s and regional sagittal angles (RSA) were measured preop and postoperatively. Results: It was found that there was a statistically significant difference in instrumentation time, blood loss and intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure in the 3D model-assisted surgery group (61.9 ± 4.7 min, 268.4 ± 42.7 ml, 16.3 ± 1.9 times) compared to the conventional surgery group (75.5 ± 11.0 min, 347.8 ± 52.2 mL, 19.7 ± 2.4 times) (t = 4.5325, P < 0.0001 and t = 4.7109, P < 0.0001 and t = 4.4937, P < 0.0001, respectively) Although the screw misplacement rate of the conventional surgery group was higher than that of the 3D model-assisted surgery group, the only statistically significant difference was in the medial axial encroachment (t = 5.101 P = 0.02) . There was no severe misplacement of pedicle screws in either group. There were no statistically significant differences between postoperative RSA angles and were in both groups restored significantly. Conclusion: The results of this study have shown us that the 3D model helps surgeons see patients’ pathoanatomy and determine rod lengths, pedicle screw angles and lengths preoperatively and peroparatively, which in turn shortens operative time, reduces blood loss and fluoroscopy exposure.

PDF

___

. Elmi-Terander A, Skulason H, Söderman M, et al. Surgical navigation technol- ogy based on augmented reality and integrated 3D intraoperative imaging a spine cadaveric feasibility and accuracy study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(21):E1303-E1311. [CrossRef]
2. Sheha ED, Gandhi SD, Colman MW. 3D printing in spine surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7(Suppl 5):S164. [CrossRef]
3. Cai H, Liu Z, Wei F, Yu M, Xu N, Li Z. 3D printing in spine surgery. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1093:345-359
4. Wu AM, Lin JL, Kwan KYH, Wang XY, Zhao J. 3D-printing techniques in spine surgery: the future prospects and current challenges. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018;15(6):399-401. [CrossRef]
5. Senkoylu A, Daldal I, Cetinkaya M. 3D printing and spine surgery. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2020;28(2):2309499020927081. [CrossRef]
6. Chen PC, Chang CC, Te CH, et al. The accuracy of 3D printing assistance in the spinal deformity surgery. BioMed Res Int. 2019;11:7196528.
7. Cho W, Job AV, Chen J, Baek JH. A review of current clinical applications of three- dimensional printing in spine surgery. Asian Spine J. 2018;12(1):171-177. [CrossRef]
8. Gadia A, Shah K, Nene A. Emergence of three-dimensional printing technology and its utility in spine surgery. Asian Spine J. 2018;12(2):365-371. [CrossRef]
9. Garg B, Mehta N. Current status of 3D printing in spine surgery. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018;9(3):218-225. [CrossRef]
10. Hsu MR, Haleem MS, Hsu W. 3D printing applications in minimally invasive spine surgery. Minim Invasive Surg. 2018;2018:4760769. [CrossRef]
11. Tan LA, Yerneni K, Tuchman A, et al. Utilization of the 3D-printed spine model for freehand pedicle screw placement in complex spinal deformity correction. J Spine Surg. 2018;4(2):319-327. [CrossRef]
12. Tong Y, Kaplan DJ, Spivak JM, Bendo JA. Three-dimensional printing in spine surgery: a review of current applications. Spine J. 2020;20(6):833-846. [CrossRef]
13. Parr WCH, Burnard JL, Wilson PJ, Mobbs RJ. 3D printed anatomical (bio)mod- els in spine surgery: clinical benefits and value to health care providers. J Spine Surg. 2019;5(4):549-560. [CrossRef]
14. Learch TJ, Massie JB, Pathria MN, Ahlgren BA, Garfin SR. Assessment of pedi- cle screw placement utilizing conventional radiography and computed tomog- raphy: a proposed systematic approach to improve accuracy of interpretation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(7):767-773. [CrossRef]
15. Wiesner L, Kothe R, Rüther W. Anatomic evaluation of two different techniques for the percutaneous insertion of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(15):1599-1603. [CrossRef]
16. Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Berteaux D, Salgado V. Osteosynthesis of thoraco- lumbar spine fractures with metal plates screwed through the vertebral pedi- cles. Reconstr Surg Traumatol. 1976;15:2-16.
17. Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel C. Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;203(203):7-17. [CrossRef]
18. Foley KT, Simon DA, Rampersaud YR. Virtual fluoroscopy: computer-assisted fluoroscopic navigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(4):347-351. [CrossRef]
19. Silbermann J, Riese F, Allam Y, Reichert T, Koeppert H, Gutberlet M. Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw placement in lumbar and sacral spine: comparison between free-hand and O-arm based navigation techniques. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(6):875-881. [CrossRef]
20. Allam Y, Silbermann J, Riese F, Greiner-Perth R. Computer tomography assess- ment of pedicle screw placement in thoracic spine: comparison between free hand and a generic 3D-based navigation techniques. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(3):648- 653. [CrossRef]
21. Liu K, Zhang Q, Li X, et al. Preliminary application of a multi-level 3D printing drill guide template for pedicle screw placement in severe and rigid scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(6):1684-1689. [CrossRef]
22. Garg B, Gupta M, Singh M, Kalyanasundaram D. Outcome and safety analysis of 3D-printed patient-specific pedicle screw jigs for complex spinal deformities: a comparative study. Spine J. 2019;19(1):56-64. [CrossRef]
23. Otsuki B, Takemoto M, Fujibayashi S, Kimura H, Masamoto K, Matsuda S. Utility of a custom screw insertion guide and a full-scale, color-coded 3D plas- ter model for guiding safe surgical exposure and screw insertion during spine revision surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25(1):94-102. [CrossRef]
24. Wilcox B, Mobbs RJ, Wu AM, Phan K. Systematic review of 3D printing in spinal surgery: the current state of play. J Spine Surg. 2017;3(3):433-443. [CrossRef]
25. Wu AM, Wang S, Weng WQ, et al. The radiological feature of anterior occiput- to-axis screw fixation as it guides the screw trajectory on 3d printed models: a feasibility study on 3D images and 3D printed models. Med (Baltim). 2014;93(28):242.
26. Guarino J, Tennyson S, McCain G, Bond L, Shea K, King H. Rapid prototyping technology for surgeries of the pediatric spine and pelvis: benefits analysis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2007;27(8):955-960. [CrossRef]
27. Izatt MT, Thorpe PLPJ, Thompson RG, et al. The use of physical biomodelling in complex spinal surgery. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(9):1507-1518. [CrossRef]
28. Castro WHM, Halm H, Jerosch J, Malms J, Steinbeck J, Blasius S. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in lumbar vertebrae. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(11):1320-1324. [CrossRef]
29. Harada GK, Siyaji ZK, Younis S, Louie PK, Samartzis D, An HS. Imaging in spine surgery: current concepts and future directions. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2020 ;4(2):99-110. [CrossRef]
30. Fisher CG, Sahajpal V, Keynan O, et al. Accuracy and safety of pedicle screw fixation in thoracic spine trauma. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;5(6):520-526. [CrossRef]
31. Orief T, Alfawareh M, Halawani M, Attia W, Almusrea K. Accuracy of percu- taneous pedicle screw insertion in spinal fixation of traumatic thoracic and lumbar spine fractures. Surg Neurol Int. 2018;9:78. [CrossRef]
32. Attar A, Ugur HC, Uz A, Tekdemir I, Egemen N, Genc Y. Lumbar pedicle: surgi- cal anatomic evaluation and relationships. Eur Spine J. 2001;10(1):10-15. [CrossRef]
33. Wood MJ, McMillen J. The surgical learning curve and accuracy of minimally invasive lumbar pedicle screw placement using CT based computer-assisted navigation plus continuous electromyography monitoring - A retrospective review of 627 screws in 150 patients. Int J Spine Surg. 2014;8:27. [CrossRef]
34. Solitro GF, Whitlock K, Amirouche F, Mehta AI, McDonnell A. Currently adopted criteria for pedicle screw diameter selection. Int J Spine Surg. 2019;13(2):132-145. [CrossRef]
35. Marconi S, Pugliese L, Botti M, et al. Value of 3D printing for the comprehen- sion of surgical anatomy. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(10):4102-4110. [CrossRef]