Three-dimensional (3D) printing has become more frequently used in surgical specialties in recent years. Orthopaedic surgery is particularly well-suited to 3D printing applications, and thus has seen a variety of uses for this technology. These uses include pre-operative planning, patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), and patient-specific implant production. As with any new technology, it is important to assess the clinical impact, if any, of three-dimensional printing.

The purpose of this review was to answer the following questions:

What are the current clinical uses of 3D printing in orthopaedic surgery?

Four electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science) were searched for Articles discussing clinical applications of 3D printing in orthopaedics up to November 13, 2018. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate and data was abstracted. Descriptive analysis was performed for all studies. A meta-analysis was performed among eligible studies to compare estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, and fluoroscopy use between 3D printing cases and controls. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria for non-randomized studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD42018099144).

One-hundred and eight studies were included, published between 2012 and 2018. A total of 2328 patients were included in these studies, and 1558 patients were treated using 3D printing technology. The mean age of patients, where reported, was 47 years old (range 3 to 90). Three-dimensional printing was most commonly reported in trauma (N = 41) and oncology (N = 22). Pre-operative planning was the most common use of 3D printing (N = 63), followed by final implants (N = 32) and PSI (N = 22). Titanium was the most commonly used 3D printing material (16 studies, 27.1%). A wide range of costs were reported for 3D printing applications, ranging from “less than $10” to $20,000. The mean MINORS score for non-randomized studies was 8.3/16 for non-comparative studies (N = 78), and 17.7/24 for non-randomized comparative studies (N = 19). Among RCTs, the most commonly identified sources of bias were for performance and detection biases. Three-dimensional printing resulted in a statistically significant decrease in mean operative time (−15.6 mins, p < .00001), mean EBL (−35.9 mL, p<.00001), and mean fluoroscopy shots (−3.5 shots, p < .00001) in 3D printing patients compared to controls.

The uses of 3D printing in orthopaedic surgery are growing rapidly, with its use being most common in trauma and oncology. Pre-operative planning is the most common use of 3D printing in orthopaedics. The use of 3D printing significantly reduces EBL, operative time, and fluoroscopy use compared to controls. Future research is needed to confirm and clarify the magnitude of these effects.

Level of evidence (LOE) determination is a reliable tool to assess the strength of research based on study design. Improvements in LOE are necessary for the advancement of evidence-based clinical care. The objectives of this study were to determine if the LOE presented at the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) annual meeting has improved over time and to determine how the LOE presented at MSTS annual meetings compares to that of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) annual meetings.

We reviewed abstracts from the MSTS and OTA annual meeting podium presentations from 2005 to 2014. Three independent reviewers evaluated a total of 1222 abstracts for study type and LOE. Changes in the distributions of study type and LOE over time were evaluated by Pearson Chi-Squared test.

There were a total of 577 podium abstracts from the MSTS and 645 from the OTA. Of the MSTS therapeutic studies, 0.5% (2/376) were level I, while 75% (281/376) were level IV. There was a seven-fold higher proportion of level I studies (3.4% [14/409]) and less than half as many level IV studies (32% [130/409]) presented at OTA. There was no improvement in the MSTS LOE for all study types (p=0.13) and therapeutic study types (p=0.36) over the study decade. In contrast, the OTA LOE increased significantly over this time period for all study types (p<0.01). The proportion of controlled therapeutic studies (LOE I through III) versus uncontrolled studies (LOE IV) increased significantly over time at the OTA (p<0.021), but not at the MSTS (p=0.10).

Uncontrolled case series continue to dominate the MSTS scientific program, whereas over the past decade, higher-level studies and more modern study methodology has been employed by members of the OTA.

The relationship between pain catastrophising and emotional disorders including anxiety and depression in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing total joint replacement (TJR) is an emerging area of study. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between pain catastrophising, anxiety, depression and preoperative patient characteristics.

A prospective cohort study of preoperative TJR patients at one centre over 12-months was conducted. We examined association between catastrophising, anxiety, depression and preoperative patient characteristics including demographics, pain and function. Pain catastrophising was assessed using the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS), and anxiety/depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A, HADS-D). Patient perceived level of hip/knee pain was measured using a visual analogue (VAS) pain scale. Patient perception of function was measured using the Oxford Score. Preoperative radiographic grading of OA was determined using the Kellgren and Lawrence (K-L) scale. Logistic regression was used to assess pattern of relationship between preoperative characteristics and PCS or HADS. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. A secondary quantile regression analysis examined whether a model not restricted to pre-defined PCS and HADS categories would yield comparable results to the logistic regression model described in the primary analysis. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

The sample included 463 TJR patients (178 hips, 285 knees). VAS pain (OR 1.23,95%CI 1.04–1.45) and Oxford score (OR 1.13,95%CI 1.07–1.20) were identified as significant predictors for PCS. The same two variables were the strong predictors for all sub-domains of PCS excluding rumination. Oxford Score was the only significant predictor for abnormal HADS-A (OR 1.10,95%CI 1.04–1.17) while VAS pain (OR 1.27,95%CI 1.02–1.52) and Oxford (OR 1.09,95%CI 1.01–1.17) were significant predictors for abnormal HADS-D. Similar pattern of association for PCS and HADS was observed in the quantile regression model, where larger VAS pain and Oxford scores significantly increased median PCS across all domains. Female gender, younger age or having a higher ASA grade were associated with higher median HADS-A, but unlike in the logistic regression, this association was statistically significant.

Pain catastrophising and emotional disorders generally result in poor functional outcomes in TJR patients. The most important predictor of catastrophising, anxiety/depression is pain and subjective function. At risk patients include those with high preoperative pain with generally good preoperative function, as well as younger females with significant comorbidities. Such patients should be identified, and targeted psychological therapy implemented preoperatively to optimise coping strategies and adaptive behaviour to mitigate inferior TJR outcomes including pain and patient dissatisfaction.

Objectives

The diagnosis of surgical site infection following endoprosthetic reconstruction for bone tumours is frequently a subjective diagnosis. Large clinical trials use blinded Central Adjudication Committees (CACs) to minimise the variability and bias associated with assessing a clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to determine the level of inter-rater and intra-rater agreement in the diagnosis of surgical site infection in the context of a clinical trial.

Objectives

Evidence -based medicine (EBM) is designed to inform clinical decision-making within all medical specialties, including orthopaedic surgery. We recently published a pilot survey of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) membership and demonstrated that the adoption of EBM principles is variable among Canadian orthopaedic surgeons. The objective of this study was to conduct a broader international survey of orthopaedic surgeons to identify characteristics of research studies perceived as being most influential in informing clinical decision-making.