» Articles » PMID: 30511245

Three-dimensionally Printed Vertebrae with Different Bone Densities for Surgical Training

Overview
Journal Eur Spine J
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2018 Dec 5
PMID 30511245
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate whether 3D-printed vertebrae offer realistic haptic simulation of posterior pedicle screw placement and decompression surgery with normal to osteoporotic-like properties.

Methods: A parameterizable vertebra model was developed, adjustable in cortical and cancellous bone thicknesses. Based on this model, five different L3 vertebra types (α, β, γ1, γ2, and γ3) were designed and fourfold 3D-printed. Four spine surgeons assessed each vertebra type and a purchasable L3 Sawbones vertebra. Haptic behavior of six common steps in posterior spine surgery was rated from 1 to 10: 1-2: too soft, 3-4: osteoporotic, 5-6: normal, 7-8: hard, and 9-10: too hard. Torques were measured during pedicle screw insertion.

Results: In total, 24 vertebrae (six vertebra types times four examiners) were evaluated. Mean surgical assessment scores were: α 3.2 ± 0.9 (osteoporotic), β 1.9 ± 0.7 (too soft), γ1 4.7 ± 0.9 (osteoporotic-normal), γ2 6.3 ± 1.1 (normal), and γ3 7.5 ± 1.1 (hard). All surgeons considered the 3D-printed vertebrae α, γ1, and γ2 as more realistic than Sawbones vertebrae, which were rated with a mean score of 4.1 ± 1.7 (osteoporotic-normal). Mean pedicle screw insertion torques (Ncm) were: α 32 ± 4, β 12 ± 3, γ1 74 ± 4, γ2 129 ± 13, γ3 196 ± 34 and Sawbones 90 ± 11.

Conclusions: In this pilot study, 3D-printed vertebrae displayed haptically and biomechanically realistic simulation of posterior spinal procedures and outperformed Sawbones. This approach enables surgical training on bone density-specific vertebrae and provides an outlook toward future preoperative simulation on patient-specific spine replicas. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Citing Articles

Design and 3D printing of pelvis phantoms for cementoplasty.

Sieffert C, Meylheuc L, Bayle B, Garnon J Med Phys. 2024; 52(3):1454-1467.

PMID: 39688399 PMC: 11880649. DOI: 10.1002/mp.17560.


3D Printing for Personalized Solutions in Cervical Spondylosis.

Wu L, Zhang Z, Li R, Xin D, Wang J Orthop Res Rev. 2024; 16:251-259.

PMID: 39435304 PMC: 11492914. DOI: 10.2147/ORR.S486438.


Patient-specific mechanical analysis of pedicle screw insertion in simulated osteoporotic spinal bone models derived from medical images.

Nishida N, Suzuki H, Tetsu H, Morishita Y, Kumaran Y, Jiang F Asian Spine J. 2024; 18(5):621-629.

PMID: 39164024 PMC: 11538827. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2024.0121.


Tridimensional models and radiographic study of dorsal laminectomy and thoracolumbar hemilaminectomy in dogs.

Nunez R, Cordova K, Carvalho Y Acta Cir Bras. 2023; 38:e382623.

PMID: 37556719 PMC: 10403244. DOI: 10.1590/acb382623.


Current applications of 3-dimensional printing in spine surgery.

Kabra D, Garg D J Orthop. 2023; 41:28-32.

PMID: 37287587 PMC: 10241647. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2023.05.009.


References
1.
Inceoglu S, Burghardt A, Akbay A, Majumdar S, McLain R . Trabecular architecture of lumbar vertebral pedicle. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(13):1485-90. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000168373.24644.9f. View

2.
Paiva W, Amorim R, Bezerra D, Masini M . Aplication of the stereolithography technique in complex spine surgery. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2007; 65(2B):443-5. DOI: 10.1590/s0004-282x2007000300015. View

3.
Inceoglu S, Kilincer C, Tami A, McLain R . Cortex of the pedicle of the vertebral arch. Part II: Microstructure. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007; 7(3):347-51. DOI: 10.3171/SPI-07/09/347. View

4.
Bergeson R, Schwend R, DeLucia T, Silva S, Smith J, Avilucea F . How accurately do novice surgeons place thoracic pedicle screws with the free hand technique?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(15):E501-7. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817b61af. View

5.
Mughir A, Yusof M, Abdullah S, Ahmad S . Morphological comparison between adolescent and adult lumbar pedicles using computerised tomography scanning. Surg Radiol Anat. 2010; 32(6):587-92. DOI: 10.1007/s00276-009-0612-x. View