Anna Bertoli Borgognoni, Arne Oliver Lücke, Katerina Znacko, Karen Eich Hammer, Thomas Baad-Hansen
{"title":"3D-Printed Cutting Guide in Oncological Pelvic Surgery: A Case Report and Proof of Concept Validation of Cutting Guide Accuracy.","authors":"Anna Bertoli Borgognoni, Arne Oliver Lücke, Katerina Znacko, Karen Eich Hammer, Thomas Baad-Hansen","doi":"10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i01.5142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In recent years, numerous hospitals have established in-house three-dimensional (3D) printing centers, enabling health-care facilities to leverage the transformative capabilities of additive manufacturing technology on their premises. With this emerging opportunity arises a necessity to undertake a thorough assessment of the manufactured tools employed in clinical practice. The objectives of this article are to describe the pathway of in-house printing and evaluate the accuracy of 3D-printed specific instruments.</p><p><strong>Case report: </strong>A case is reported along with the workflow for creating a patient model and cutting guide. The patient is a 76-year-old Caucasian woman with bone metastasis from a known renal cancer located in the pelvis. The model was used preoperatively, while the guide was used during surgery. Following this, the guide underwent computed tomography (CT) scanning, and a 3D digital model was reconstructed. Two dimensions, labeled A and B, were established. We compared pre-operative measurements, respectively, with measurements from the printed physical guide and from the rescanned post-operative digital model. Finally, A and B were measured on the bone defect on the patient's post-operative CT. Variation in axis A value between the mean of the first two groups was 0.5 mm and in axis B was 0.7 mm. On the printed physical guide, the mean of axis A was 73.5 mm, and the mean of axis B was 71.8 mm. Variation in A value between the mean of this group and the pre-operative was 1.7 mm and in B value was 0.5 mm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The workflow used at our hospital was described with an example of how to evaluate the accuracy of in-house 3D printing. Results showed high accuracy of the printing method, a reliable correlation between desired and actual outcomes, and a short lead time.</p>","PeriodicalId":16647,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"103-108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11723723/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i01.5142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: In recent years, numerous hospitals have established in-house three-dimensional (3D) printing centers, enabling health-care facilities to leverage the transformative capabilities of additive manufacturing technology on their premises. With this emerging opportunity arises a necessity to undertake a thorough assessment of the manufactured tools employed in clinical practice. The objectives of this article are to describe the pathway of in-house printing and evaluate the accuracy of 3D-printed specific instruments.
Case report: A case is reported along with the workflow for creating a patient model and cutting guide. The patient is a 76-year-old Caucasian woman with bone metastasis from a known renal cancer located in the pelvis. The model was used preoperatively, while the guide was used during surgery. Following this, the guide underwent computed tomography (CT) scanning, and a 3D digital model was reconstructed. Two dimensions, labeled A and B, were established. We compared pre-operative measurements, respectively, with measurements from the printed physical guide and from the rescanned post-operative digital model. Finally, A and B were measured on the bone defect on the patient's post-operative CT. Variation in axis A value between the mean of the first two groups was 0.5 mm and in axis B was 0.7 mm. On the printed physical guide, the mean of axis A was 73.5 mm, and the mean of axis B was 71.8 mm. Variation in A value between the mean of this group and the pre-operative was 1.7 mm and in B value was 0.5 mm.
Conclusion: The workflow used at our hospital was described with an example of how to evaluate the accuracy of in-house 3D printing. Results showed high accuracy of the printing method, a reliable correlation between desired and actual outcomes, and a short lead time.