Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 16, 2025
08:15
Three-Dimensional Preoperative Virtual Planning in Derotational Proximal Femoral Osteotomy
Published on: February 17, 2023
1.1K
Comparison of 2 open-sourced 3-dimensional modeling techniques for orthopaedic application
Yuan Chai1, Robert Simic1, Paul N Smith2
1Trauma and Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Department of Surgery, The Medical School, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
OTA International : the Open Access Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
|December 26, 2022
Summary
A new, open-source workflow using Drishti software offers faster and more efficient three-dimensional (3D) bone reconstruction for urgent orthopedic trauma cases. This method requires less hardware and produces smaller data files compared to 3D Slicer.
Area of Science:
- Orthopaedic surgery
- Medical imaging
- 3D printing technology
Background:
- Three-dimensional (3D) printing is increasingly used in clinical settings, particularly for orthopaedic surgical planning in trauma cases.
- Accurate 3D models of fractures are crucial for guiding interventions and designing patient-specific implants.
- A need exists for uncomplicated, inexpensive, and rapid 3D modeling workflows for complex fractures.
Purpose of the Study:
- To develop and evaluate a novel, simple, open-source, and rapid 3D bone modeling workflow using Drishti software.
- To compare the efficacy, data storage, and processing time of Drishti against the 3D Slicer platform.
- To demonstrate the compatibility of Drishti-generated 3D models for customized implant design.
Main Methods:
- Utilized patient DICOM datasets (n=13) for 3D model generation.
- Employed Drishti software for bone surface isolation from surrounding tissues.
- Compared Drishti's performance in terms of data size and processing time against 3D Slicer.
- Integrated a pelvic fracture case into a customized implant design workflow.
Main Results:
- Drishti generated 3D models with 27% smaller data sizes and 12% smaller processing files than 3D Slicer (P < 0.05).
- Drishti was 39% faster in viewing 3D bone models and 38% faster in data export compared to 3D Slicer (P < 0.05).
- Both software platforms demonstrated compatibility with third-party implant design programs.
Conclusions:
- Drishti is highly suitable for urgent trauma cases requiring fast, efficient 3D bone reconstruction with minimal hardware.
- 3D Slicer excels in quantitative preoperative planning and multilayer segmentation.
- Both Drishti and 3D Slicer facilitate the creation of customized implants for surgical training and planning.
