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.

We reviewed the outcome of 69 uncemented, custom-made, distal femoral endoprosthetic replacements performed in 69 patients between 1994 and 2006. There were 31 women and 38 men with a mean age at implantation of 16.5 years (5 to 37). All procedures were performed for primary malignant bone tumours of the distal femur. At a mean follow-up of 124.2 months (4 to 212), 53 patients were alive, with one patient lost to follow-up. All nine implants (13.0%) were revised due to aseptic loosening at a mean of 52 months (8 to 91); three implants (4.3%) were revised due to fracture of the shaft of the prosthesis and three patients (4.3%) had a peri-prosthetic fracture. Bone remodelling associated with periosteal cortical thinning adjacent to the uncemented intramedullary stem was seen in 24 patients but this did not predispose to failure. All aseptically loose implants in this series were diagnosed to be loose within the first five years.

The results from this study suggest that custom-made uncemented distal femur replacements have a higher rate of aseptic loosening compared to published results for this design when used with cemented fixation. Loosening of uncemented replacements occurs early indicating that initial fixation of the implant is crucial.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:263–9.

We describe the application of a non-invasive extendible endoprosthetic replacement in skeletally-mature patients undergoing revision for failed joint replacement with resultant limb-length inequality after malignant or non-malignant disease. This prosthesis was developed for tumour surgery in skeletally-immature patients but has now been adapted for use in revision procedures to reconstruct the joint or facilitate an arthrodesis, replace bony defects and allow limb length to be restored gradually in the post-operative period.

We record the short-term results in nine patients who have had this procedure after multiple previous reconstructive operations. In six, the initial reconstruction had been performed with either allograft or endoprosthetic replacement for neoplastic disease and in three for non-neoplastic disease. The essential components of the prosthesis are a magnetic disc, a gearbox and a drive screw which allows painless lengthening of the prosthesis using the principle of electromagnetic induction. The mean age of the patients was 37 years (18 to 68) with a mean follow-up of 34 months (12 to 62). They had previously undergone a mean of six (2 to 14) open procedures on the affected limb before revision with the non-invasive extendible endoprosthesis.

The mean length gained was 56 mm (19 to 107) requiring a mean of nine (3 to 20) lengthening episodes performed in the outpatient department. There was one case of recurrent infection after revision of a previously infected implant and one fracture of the prosthesis after a fall. No amputations were performed. Planned exchange of the prosthesis was required in three patients after attainment of the maximum lengthening capacity of the implant. There was no failure of the lengthening mechanism. The Mean Musculoskeletal Tumour Society rating score was 22 of 30 available points (18 to 28).

The use of a non-invasive extendible endoprosthesis in this manner provided patients with good functional results and restoration of leg-length equality, without the need for multiple open lengthening procedures.