Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 20, 2025
Treatment of Facial Deformities using 3D Planning and Printing of Patient-Specific Implants
Published on: May 23, 2020
Three-Dimensional Printed Plate Template Versus Hemipelvis Model in Patient-Specific Plate Preparation for Posterior
Jianan Chen1,2, Yifan Zheng1,2, Wei Zhou1
1Department of Orthopeadics Surgery, General Hospital of Central Theater Command, Wuhan, China.
Objective:
The application of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology in the management of posterior wall acetabular fractures can greatly reduce surgical invasiveness and operative time and simplify the procedure of reconstruction plate contouring, but the cost and time of patient-specific plate preparation on the basis of traditional 3D-printed pelvis model should not be neglected. We described a new method for patient-specific plate preparation by using 3D-printed plate template. The study aimed to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of the 3D-printed plate template in patient-specific plate preparation for posterior wall acetabular fractures.
Methods:
A total of 65 cases of posterior wall acetabular fractures with surgical treatment from December 2012 to December 2020 were chosen. According to the different plate contouring methods, the 65 cases were divided into three groups, which were group A (21 cases), group B (20 cases), and group C (24 cases). In group A, the 3D-printed plate template was used to contour the patient-specific reconstruction plate before surgery, whereas the 3D-printed hemipelvis model was adopted for group B. In group C, the reconstruction plate was contoured intraoperatively. Among the three groups, the instrumentation time, surgical time, blood loss, patient-specific plate preparation time, complications, reduction quality, and hip function were compared. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze the reduction quality and hip function among three groups.
Results:
In comparison with group C, patients in groups A and B were featured by obviously shorter instrumentation time (-22, -23 min), shorter surgical time (-46, -44 min), and less intraoperative blood loss (-110, -122 mL). Compared to the hemipelvis model in group B (2.29 ± 0.56 vs. 12.70 ± 3.79 days), the 3D printing time for plate templates in group A was significantly shorter. The reduction quality and hip function had no obvious statistical difference among the three groups. The complication rate within group A (3/21) and group B (3/20) were both slightly lower than group C (5/24), with no obvious difference.
Conclusions:
Both the patient-specific pre-contoured plate fixation methods based on the 3D-printed hemipelvis model and plate template can achieve satisfactory clinical efficacy, with the advantage of shorter instrumentation and surgical time, and less intraoperative blood loss. However, 3D printing of plate template is easier and less time-consuming, considering the shorter time and less cost for 3D printing of physical model.
