Among the advanced technology developed and tested for orthopaedic surgery, the Rizzoli (IOR) has a long experience on custom-made design and implant of devices for joint and bone replacements. This follows the recent advancements in additive manufacturing, which now allows to obtain products also in metal alloy by deposition of material layer-by-layer according to a digital model. The process starts from medical image, goes through anatomical modelling, prosthesis design, prototyping, and final production in 3D printers and in case post-production. These devices have demonstrated already to be accurate enough to address properly the specific needs and conditions of the patient and of his/her physician. These guarantee also minimum removal of the tissues, partial replacements, no size related issues, minimal invasiveness, limited instrumentation. The thorough preparation of the treatment results also in a considerable shortening of the surgical and of recovery time. The necessary additional efforts and costs of custom-made implants seem to be well balanced by these advantages and savings, which shall include the lower failures and revision surgery rates. This also allows thoughtful optimization of the component-to-bone interfaces, by advanced lattice structures, with topologies mimicking the trabecular bone, possibly to promote osteointegration and to prevent infection. IOR's experience comprises all sub-disciplines and anatomical areas, here mentioned in historical order. Originally, several systems of Patient-Specific instrumentation have been exploited in total knee and total ankle replacements. A few massive osteoarticular reconstructions in the shank and foot for severe bone fractures were performed, starting from mirroring the contralateral area. Something very similar was performed also for pelvic surgery in the Oncology department, where massive skeletal reconstructions for bone tumours are necessary. To this aim, in addition to the standard anatomical modelling, prosthesis design, technical/technological refinements, and manufacturing, surgical guides for the correct execution of the osteotomies are also designed and 3D printed. Another original experience is about en-block replacement of vertebral bodies for severe bone loss, in particular for tumours. In this project, technological and biological aspects have also been addressed, to enhance osteointegration and to diminish the risk of infection. In our series there is also a case of successful custom reconstruction of the anterior chest wall. Initial experiences are in progress also for shoulder and elbow surgery, in particular for pre-op planning and surgical guide design in complex re-alignment osteotomies for severe bone deformities. Also in complex flat-foot deformities, in preparation of surgical corrections, 3D digital reconstruction and 3D printing in cheap ABS filaments have been valuable, for indication, planning of surgery and patient communication; with special materials mimicking bone strength, these 3D physical models are precious also for training and preparation of the surgery. In Paediatric surgery severe multi planar & multifocal deformities in children are addressed with personalized pre-op planning and custom cutting-guides for the necessary osteotomies, most of which require custom allografts. A number of complex hip revision surgeries have been performed, where 3D reconstruction for possible final solutions with exact implants on the remaining bone were developed. Elective surgery has been addressed as well, in particular the customization of an original total ankle replacement designed at IOR. Also a novel system with a high-tibial-osteotomy, including a
Aim. The aim of this study is to outline the steps and techniques required to create a patient specific 3D printed guide for the accurate placement of the origin of the femoral tunnel for single bundle ACL reconstruction. Introduction. Placements of the femoral tunnels for ACL reconstruction have changed over the years. Most recently there has been a trend towards placing the tunnels in a more anatomic position. There has been subsequent debate as to where this anatomic position should be. The problem with any attempt at consensus over the placement of an anatomic landmark is that each patient has some variation in their positioning and therefore a fixed point for all has compromise for all as it is an average. Our aim was to attempt to make a cost effective and quick custom guide that could allow placement of the center of the patients’ newly created femoral tunnel in the mid position of their contralateral native ACL femoral footprint. Materials & Methods. We took a standard protocol MRI scan of a patient's knee without ACL injury transferred the DICOM files to a personal computer running OsiriX (Pixmeo, Geneva, Switzerland.) and analysed it for a series of specific anatomical landmarks. OsiriX is an image processing software dedicated to DICOM images. We marked the most posterior edge of the articular cartilage on the lateral wall of the notch (1), the most anterior edge of the articular cartilage of the lateral wall of the notch (2), the most inferior edge of the articular cartilage of the lateral wall of the notch (3) and the center of the femoral footprint of the native ACL. Distances were then calculated to determine the position relative to the three articular cartilage points of the center of the ACL footprint. These measurements and points were then utilised to create a 3D computer aided design (CAD) model of a custom guide. This was done using the 3D CAD program 123Design (Autodesk Ltd., Farnbourgh, Hampshire). This 3D model was then exported as an STL file suitable for 3D printing. The STL file was then uploaded to an online 3D printing service and the physical guide was created in transparent acrylic based photopolymer, PA220 plastic and 316L stainless steel. The models created were then measured using vernier calipers to confirm the accuracy of the final guides. Results. The MRI data showed point 1 (AP), point 2 (distal-ACL), point 3 (Ant-ACL) and point 4 (Post-ACL) at a distance of 59.83, 15, 45.8 and 13.9 respectively. For the 3D CAD model, points 1, 2, 3 and 4 were at a distance of 59.83, 15, 45.8 and 13.9 respectively. For the PA220 plastic model, points 1, 2, 3 and 4 were at a distance of 59.86, 14.48, 45.85 and 13.79 respectively. For the 316L stainless steel model, points 1, 2, 3 and 4 were at a distance of 59.79, 14.67, 45.64 and 13.48 respectively. Lastly, for the photopolymer model, points 1, 2, 3 and 4 were at a distance of 59.86, 14.2, 45.4 and 13.69 respectively. The p-value comparing MRI/CAD vs. PA220 was p=0.3753; for the comparison between MRI/CAD vs. 316L, p=0.0683; lastly for the comparison between MRI/CAD Vs. Photopolymer, p=0.3450. The models produced were accurate with no statistical difference in size and positioning of the center of the ACL footprint from the original computer model and to the position of the ACL from the MRI scans. The costs for the models 3D printed were £3.50 for the PA220 plastic, £15 for the transparent photopolymer and £25 for the 316L stainless steel. The time taken from MRI to delivery for the physical models was 7 days. Discussion. Articles regarding the creation of 3D printed custom ACL guides from the patients contralateral knee do not feature in current literature. There has been much research on custom guides for other orthopaedic procedures such as in total knee arthroplasty for the accurate placement of implants. There has also been research published on the creation of
