Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 7, 2025
3D Planning and Printing of Patient Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Bony Defects
Published on: August 4, 2020
Pelvic Reconstruction With a Novel Three-Dimensional-Printed, Multimodality Imaging Based Endoprosthesis Following
Zeping Yu1, Wenli Zhang1, Xiang Fang1
1West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Background And Purpose:
Pelvic tumor involving Type I + IV resections are technically challenging, along with various reconstructions methods presenting unsatisfactory outcomes and high complication rates. Since predominating studies preferred adopting pedicle screw-rod system (PRSS) to address this issue, we designed a novel three-dimensional-printed, multimodality imaging (3DMMI) based endoprosthesis with patient-specific instrument (PSI) assistance to facilitate the surgical reconstruction of pelvic tumor involving Enneking Type I + IV resection. We aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness of this novel endoprosthesis and compare it with PRSS in Type I + IV reconstruction.
Methods:
We retrospective studied 28 patients for a median follow-up of 47 months (range, 10 to 128 months) in this study with either 3D-printed endoprosthesis reconstruction (n = 10) or PRSS reconstruction (n = 18) between January 2000 and December 2017. Preoperative 3DMMI technique was used for tumor evaluation, PSI design, virtual surgery, and endoprosthesis fabrication. Clinical, oncological outcomes, functional assessments, and complications were analyzed between the two groups.
Results:
Minor surgical trauma with mean operative duration of 251 ± 52.16 minutes (p = 0.034) and median intraoperative hemorrhage of 2000ml (range, 1600, 4000ml) (p = 0.032) was observed in endoprosthesis group. Wide margins were achieved in 9 patients of the endoprosthesis group compared with 10 in the PRSS group (p = 0.09). The 1993 version of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score (MSTS-93) was 23.9 ± 3.76 in endoprosthesis group, which was higher than PRSS group (p = 0.012). No statistical significance was found in relapse between two groups (p = 0.36). Complications were observed in two patients in endoprosthesis group compared with 12 patients in PRSS group (p = 0.046).
Conclusion:
The novel design of this 3D-printed endoprosthesis, together with 3DMMI and PSI assisted, is technically accessible with favorable clinical outcomes compared with PRSS. Further study is essential to identify its long-term outcomes.
