Comparison of 3D Printing Rapid Prototyping Technology with Traditional Radiographs in Evaluating Acetabular Defects in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Prospective and Consecutive Study

OBJECTIVE: To compare rapid prototyping technology (RP tech) in revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA) with traditional examination methods and to see how they are different in evaluating acetabular anatomy and designing surgical procedure. METHODS: From February 2014 to March 2018, 43 RTHA patients with complex acetabulum defects were enrolled in this prospective study regardless of age or gender. Incomplete and unclear data were excluded. Three types of radiographic examination were performed on each patient before the revision surgery. Four groups of evaluations were designed: (i) X‐ray; (ii) computed tomography (CT‐scan); (iii) RP tech; and (iv) CT‐aided RP tech. Discrepancies between preoperative radiographic analysis and intra‐operative findings were separately compared by a team of surgeons. Premade surgical plans based on each evaluation method were compared with the final surgical procedure. The compliance of anatomic evaluation and surgical plan‐design based on 3D RP tech and traditional radiographs were ranked manually by a of team surgeons into: (i) complete accordance; (ii) general accordance; and (iii) undetermined structure/procedure. The difference in ranks between RP tech and traditional radiographic methods were analyzed with a nonparametric Kruskal‐Wallis test. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Multiple adjustments were taken for the statistical tests level according to the Bonferroni method. RESULTS: For anatomic analysis, the accordance in four groups of evaluating methods differed from each other (P < 0.05) except for the comparison of RP tech and CT‐aided RP tech. RP tech displayed better anatomic evaluating accuracy than traditional methods (X‐ray and CT) with the “complete accordance” rates of these groups being 88.37%, 4.65% and 27.91%, respectively. But CT‐aided RP tech did not improve accuracy significantly compared with using RP tech individually, although the value seems high in the CT‐aided RP group with the “complete accordance” rate of 95.35%. For surgery design, RP tech significantly showed better applicable surgical design compared with X‐ray and CT (P < 0.05), and the “complete accordance” rates were 88.37%, 6.98% and 23.26%, but no significant difference was observed between RP tech and CT‐aided RP tech, and the “complete accordance” rate of CT‐aided RP tech group was 97.67%. RP tech showed remarkable improvement in bone defect assessment and surgical plan design. CONCLUSION: Using RP technology improved both sensibility and accuracy in acetabular defect evaluation with better locating and evaluating efficiency compared with X‐ray and CT‐scans. It also improved surgical schedule designing in complex acetabular defecting revision surgery. In particularly complex cases, CT aided RP tech may increase the accuracy of RP tech.