Cargando…

Comparison of 3D printed anatomical model qualities in acetabular fracture representation

BACKGROUND: Acetabular fractures account for 10% of pelvis injuries, which are especially difficult to treat in developing countries with less access to resources. 3D printing has previously been shown to be a beneficial method of surgical planning, however the steep initial costs associated with pu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salazar, David A., Cramer, Justin, Markin, Nicholas W., Hunt, Nathaniel H., Linke, Gabe, Siebler, Justin, Zuniga, Jorge
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9073767/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35530954
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-5069
_version_ 1784701358917550080
author Salazar, David A.
Cramer, Justin
Markin, Nicholas W.
Hunt, Nathaniel H.
Linke, Gabe
Siebler, Justin
Zuniga, Jorge
author_facet Salazar, David A.
Cramer, Justin
Markin, Nicholas W.
Hunt, Nathaniel H.
Linke, Gabe
Siebler, Justin
Zuniga, Jorge
author_sort Salazar, David A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Acetabular fractures account for 10% of pelvis injuries, which are especially difficult to treat in developing countries with less access to resources. 3D printing has previously been shown to be a beneficial method of surgical planning, however the steep initial costs associated with purchasing a 3D printer may prevent some facilities form utilizing this technique. The purpose of this study was to develop 3D printed models for acetabular surgery using methodologies of varying cost to determine differences in model accuracy and overall quality. METHODS: Five acetabular fracture models were developed from de-identified CT data using (I) proprietary and open-source segmentation software and (II) fused deposition modeling (FDM) and stereolithography (SLA) 3D printing methods. The distance between the posterior inferior iliac spine (PIIS) and the ischial spine as well as a unique fracture fragment for each model was compared between the different printing methodologies. The models were then given to 5 physicians and assessed on their overall accuracy compared to traditional 2D images. RESULTS: Printing methodology did not affect the distance from PIIS to ischial spine (P=0.263). However, fracture fragment representation differed across 3D printed models, with the most accurate model produced by the high-end resin-based printer (P=0.007). The survey analysis showed that the low-cost printing methods produced models that were not as accurate in their representation of the fractured region (P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The differences between models developed using traditional methods and low-cost methods have slight differences but may still provide useful information when developing a surgical plan.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9073767
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90737672022-05-07 Comparison of 3D printed anatomical model qualities in acetabular fracture representation Salazar, David A. Cramer, Justin Markin, Nicholas W. Hunt, Nathaniel H. Linke, Gabe Siebler, Justin Zuniga, Jorge Ann Transl Med Original Article BACKGROUND: Acetabular fractures account for 10% of pelvis injuries, which are especially difficult to treat in developing countries with less access to resources. 3D printing has previously been shown to be a beneficial method of surgical planning, however the steep initial costs associated with purchasing a 3D printer may prevent some facilities form utilizing this technique. The purpose of this study was to develop 3D printed models for acetabular surgery using methodologies of varying cost to determine differences in model accuracy and overall quality. METHODS: Five acetabular fracture models were developed from de-identified CT data using (I) proprietary and open-source segmentation software and (II) fused deposition modeling (FDM) and stereolithography (SLA) 3D printing methods. The distance between the posterior inferior iliac spine (PIIS) and the ischial spine as well as a unique fracture fragment for each model was compared between the different printing methodologies. The models were then given to 5 physicians and assessed on their overall accuracy compared to traditional 2D images. RESULTS: Printing methodology did not affect the distance from PIIS to ischial spine (P=0.263). However, fracture fragment representation differed across 3D printed models, with the most accurate model produced by the high-end resin-based printer (P=0.007). The survey analysis showed that the low-cost printing methods produced models that were not as accurate in their representation of the fractured region (P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The differences between models developed using traditional methods and low-cost methods have slight differences but may still provide useful information when developing a surgical plan. AME Publishing Company 2022-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9073767/ /pubmed/35530954 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-5069 Text en 2022 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Salazar, David A.
Cramer, Justin
Markin, Nicholas W.
Hunt, Nathaniel H.
Linke, Gabe
Siebler, Justin
Zuniga, Jorge
Comparison of 3D printed anatomical model qualities in acetabular fracture representation
title Comparison of 3D printed anatomical model qualities in acetabular fracture representation
title_full Comparison of 3D printed anatomical model qualities in acetabular fracture representation
title_fullStr Comparison of 3D printed anatomical model qualities in acetabular fracture representation
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of 3D printed anatomical model qualities in acetabular fracture representation
title_short Comparison of 3D printed anatomical model qualities in acetabular fracture representation
title_sort comparison of 3d printed anatomical model qualities in acetabular fracture representation
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9073767/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35530954
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-5069
work_keys_str_mv AT salazardavida comparisonof3dprintedanatomicalmodelqualitiesinacetabularfracturerepresentation
AT cramerjustin comparisonof3dprintedanatomicalmodelqualitiesinacetabularfracturerepresentation
AT markinnicholasw comparisonof3dprintedanatomicalmodelqualitiesinacetabularfracturerepresentation
AT huntnathanielh comparisonof3dprintedanatomicalmodelqualitiesinacetabularfracturerepresentation
AT linkegabe comparisonof3dprintedanatomicalmodelqualitiesinacetabularfracturerepresentation
AT sieblerjustin comparisonof3dprintedanatomicalmodelqualitiesinacetabularfracturerepresentation
AT zunigajorge comparisonof3dprintedanatomicalmodelqualitiesinacetabularfracturerepresentation