Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 2 | Pages 267 - 275
1 Feb 2017
Liang H Ji T Zhang Y Wang Y Guo W

Aims. The aims of this retrospective study were to report the feasibility of using 3D-printing technology for patients with a pelvic tumour who underwent reconstruction. Patients and Methods. A total of 35 patients underwent resection of a pelvic tumour and reconstruction using 3D-printed endoprostheses between September 2013 and December 2015. According to Enneking’s classification of bone defects, there were three Type I lesions, 12 Type II+III lesions, five Type I+II lesions, two Type I+II+III lesions, ten type I+II+IV lesions and three type I+II+III+IV lesions. A total of three patients underwent reconstruction using an iliac prosthesis, 12 using a standard hemipelvic prosthesis and 20 using a screw-rod connected hemipelvic prosthesis. Results. All patients had an en bloc resection. Margins were wide in 15 patients, marginal in 14 and intralesional in six. After a mean follow-up of 20.5 months (6 to 30), 25 patients survived without evidence of disease, five were alive with disease and five had died from metastatic disease. . Complications included seven patients with delayed wound healing and two with a dislocation of the hip. None had a deep infection. For the 30 surviving patients, the mean Musculoskeletal Society 93 score was 22.7 (20 to 25) for patients with an iliac prosthesis, 19.8 (15 to 26) for those with a standard prosthesis, and 17.7 (9 to 25) for those with a screw-rod connected prosthesis. Conclusion. The application of 3D-printing technology can facilitate the precise matching and osseointegration between implants and the host bone. We found that the use of 3D-printed pelvic prostheses for reconstruction of the bony defect after resection of a pelvic tumour was safe, without additional complications, and gave good short-term functional results. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:267–75


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 6 | Pages 747 - 757
1 Jun 2022
Liang H Yang Y Guo W Yan L Tang X Li D Qu H Zang J Du Z

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of application of a 3D-printed megaprosthesis with hemiarthroplasty design for defects of the distal humerus or proximal ulna following tumour resection.

Methods

From June 2018 to January 2020, 13 patients with aggressive or malignant tumours involving the distal humerus (n = 8) or proximal ulna (n = 5) were treated by en bloc resection and reconstruction with a 3D-printed megaprosthesis with hemiarthroplasty, designed in our centre. In this paper, we summarize the baseline and operative data, oncological outcome, complication profiles, and functional status of these patients.


Aims

This study aimed to analyze the accuracy and errors associated with 3D-printed, patient-specific resection guides (3DP-PSRGs) used for bone tumour resection.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 29 bone tumour resections that used 3DP-PSRGs based on 3D CT and 3D MRI. We evaluated the resection amount errors and resection margin errors relative to the preoperative plans. Guide-fitting errors and guide distortion were evaluated intraoperatively and one month postoperatively, respectively. We categorized each of these error types into three grades (grade 1, < 1 mm; grade 2, 1 to 3 mm; and grade 3, > 3 mm) to evaluate the overall accuracy.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 7 | Pages 880 - 888
1 Jul 2019
Wei R Guo W Yang R Tang X Yang Y Ji T Liang H

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe the use of 3D-printed sacral endoprostheses to reconstruct the pelvic ring and re-establish spinopelvic stability after total en bloc sacrectomy (TES) and to review its outcome.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 32 patients who underwent TES in our hospital between January 2015 and December 2017. We divided the patients into three groups on the basis of the method of reconstruction: an endoprosthesis group (n = 10); a combined reconstruction group (n = 14), who underwent non-endoprosthetic combined reconstruction, including anterior spinal column fixation; and a spinopelvic fixation (SPF) group (n = 8), who underwent only SPF. Spinopelvic stability, implant survival (IS), intraoperative haemorrhage rate, and perioperative complication rate in the endoprosthesis group were documented and compared with those of other two groups.