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

Aims. The main advantage of 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants is the potential to promote enhanced bony fixation due to their controllable porous structure. In this study we investigated the extent of osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants. Methods. We compared two groups, one made via 3D-printing (n = 7) and the other using conventional techniques (n = 7). We collected implant details, type of surgery and removal technique, patient demographics, and clinical history. Bone integration was assessed by macroscopic visual analysis, followed by sectioning to allow undecalcified histology on eight sections (~200 µm) for each implant. The outcome measures considered were area of bone attachment (%), extent of bone ingrowth (%), bone-implant contact (%), and depth of ingrowth (%), and these were quantified using a line-intercept method. Results. The two groups were matched for patient sex, age (61 and 63 years), time to revision (30 and 41 months), implant size (54 mm and 52 mm), and porosity (72% and 60%) (p > 0.152). There was no difference in visual bony attachment (p = 0.209). Histological analysis showed greater bone ingrowth in 3D-printed implants (p < 0.001), with mean bone attachment of 63% (SD 28%) and 37% (SD 20%), respectively. This was observed for all the outcome measures. Conclusion. This was the first study to investigate osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants. Greater bone ingrowth was found in 3D-printed implants, suggesting that better osseointegration can be achieved. However, the influence of specific surgeon, implant, and patient factors needs to be considered. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(7):388–400

Aims

This study aimed to answer the following questions: do 3D-printed models lead to a more accurate recognition of the pattern of complex fractures of the elbow?; do 3D-printed models lead to a more reliable recognition of the pattern of these injuries?; and do junior surgeons benefit more from 3D-printed models than senior surgeons?

Aims. This aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of designing and introducing generic 3D-printed instrumentation for routine use in total knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. Instruments were designed to take advantage of 3D-printing technology, particularly ensuring that all parts were pre-assembled, to theoretically reduce the time and skill required during surgery. Concerning functionality, ranges of resection angle and distance were restricted within a safe zone, while accommodating either mechanical or anatomical alignment goals. To identify the most suitable biocompatible materials, typical instrument shapes and mating parts, such as dovetails and screws, were designed and produced. Results. Before and after steam sterilization, dimensional analysis showed that acrylonitrile butadiene styrene could not withstand the temperatures without dimensional changes. Oscillating saw tests with slotted cutting blocks produced debris, fractures, or further dimensional changes in the shape of Nylon-12 and polymethylmethacrylate (MED610), but polyetherimide ULTEM 1010 was least affected. Conclusion. The study showed that 3D-printed instrumentation was technically feasible and had some advantages. However, other factors, such as whether all procedural steps can be accomplished with a set of 3D-printed instruments, the logistics of delivery, and the economic aspects, require further study. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):115–120

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.

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of 3D-printed modular prostheses in patients who underwent joint-sparing limb salvage surgery (JSLSS) for malignant femoral diaphyseal bone tumours.

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.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most dreaded complications after arthroplasty surgery; thus numerous approaches have been undertaken to equip metal surfaces with antibacterial properties. Due to its antimicrobial effects, silver is a promising coating for metallic surfaces, and several types of silver-coated arthroplasty implants are in clinical use today. However, silver can also exert toxic effects on eukaryotic cells both in the immediate vicinity of the coated implants and systemically. In most clinically-used implants, silver coatings are applied on bulk components that are not in direct contact with bone, such as in partial or total long bone arthroplasties used in tumour or complex revision surgery. These implants differ considerably in the coating method, total silver content, and silver release rates. Safety issues, such as the occurrence of argyria, have been a cause for concern, and the efficacy of silver coatings in terms of preventing PJI is also controversial. The application of silver coatings is uncommon on parts of implants intended for cementless fixation in host bone, but this option might be highly desirable since the modification of implant surfaces in order to improve osteoconductivity can also increase bacterial adhesion. Therefore, an optimal silver content that inhibits bacterial colonization while maintaining osteoconductivity is crucial if silver were to be applied as a coating on parts intended for bone contact. This review summarizes the different methods used to apply silver coatings to arthroplasty components, with a focus on the amount and duration of silver release from the different coatings; the available experience with silver-coated implants that are in clinical use today; and future strategies to balance the effects of silver on bacteria and eukaryotic cells, and to develop silver-coated titanium components suitable for bone ingrowth.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):423–429.

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.

Cementless knee arthroplasty has seen a recent resurgence in popularity due to conceptual advantages, including improved osseointegration providing biological fixation, increased surgical efficiency, and reduced systemic complications associated with cement impaction and wear from cement debris. Increasingly younger and higher demand patients are requiring knee arthroplasty, and as such, there is optimism cementless fixation may improve implant survivorship and functional outcomes.

Compared to cemented implants, the National Joint Registry (NJR) currently reports higher revision rates in cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but lower in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, recent studies are beginning to show excellent outcomes with cementless implants, particularly with UKA which has shown superior performance to cemented varieties. Cementless TKA has yet to show long-term benefit, and currently performs equivalently to cemented in short- to medium-term cohort studies. However, with novel concepts including 3D-printed coatings, robotic-assisted surgery, radiostereometric analysis, and kinematic or functional knee alignment principles, it is hoped they may help improve the outcomes of cementless TKA in the long-term. In addition, though cementless implant costs remain higher due to novel implant coatings, it is speculated cost-effectiveness can be achieved through greater surgical efficiency and potential reduction in revision costs. There is paucity of level one data on long-term outcomes between fixation methods and the cost-effectiveness of modern cementless knee arthroplasty.

This review explores recent literature on cementless knee arthroplasty, with regards to clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness; providing a concise update to assist clinicians on implant choice.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(1):48–57.

Increasing innovation in rapid prototyping (RP) and additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, is bringing about major changes in translational surgical research.

This review describes the current position in the use of additive manufacturing in orthopaedic surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:455-60.