There are few reports of rapid prototyping in orthopedic surgery. In 2003, Minns and colleagues15 used a 3-D model in the planning of a tibial resection for TKA. They found the model to be accurate at time of surgery, resulting in appropriate tibial coverage by a conventional meniscal-bearing implant. Munjal and colleagues16 reported on 10 complex failed hip arthroplasty cases in which patients had revision surgery after preoperative planning using 3-D modeling techniques. The authors found that, in 8 of the 10 cases, conventional classification systems of bone loss were inaccurate in comparison with the prototype. Four cases required reconstruction with a custom triflange when conventional implants were not deemed reasonable based on the pelvic model. Tam and colleagues17 reported using a 3-D prototype as an aid in surgical planning for resection of a scapular osteochondroma in a 6-year-old patient. They found the rapid prototype to be useful at time of resection—similar to what we found with 1 patient (case 6). Adding contrast media to our patient’s scan allowed for 3-D visualization of the lesion and the encased vasculature. Fu and colleagues18 reported using a patient-specific drill template to insert anterior transpedicular screws. They constructed 24 prototypes of a formalin-preserved cervical vertebra to create a patient-specific biocompatible drill template for use in correcting multilevel cervical instability. They found the technique to be highly reproducible and accurate. Zein and colleagues19 used a rapid prototype of 3 consecutive human livers to preoperatively identify the vascular and biliary tract anatomy. They reported a high degree of accuracy—mean dimensional errors of less than 4 mm for the entire model and 1.3 mm for the vascular diameter.
The models created by implant manufacturers in this series were used to perform “mock” surgery before the actual procedures. Working with these models prompted us to buy our own 3-D printer. The learning curve can be steep, but commercially available 3-D printers allow for prompt in-office production of high-quality realistic prototypes at relatively low per-case cost (Figure 8). Three-dimensional modeling allows surgeons to assess the accuracy of their original surgical plans and, if necessary, correct them before surgery. Although computer-aided design models are useful, the ability to “perform surgery preoperatively” adds another element to surgeons’ understanding of the potential issues that may arise. Also, an in-office printer can help improve surgeons’ understanding and control over the process by which images are translated from radiographic file to 3-D model. Disadvantages of an in-office system include start-up and maintenance costs, office space requirements, and a significant learning curve for software and hardware applications. In addition, creation of 3-D models requires close interaction with radiologists who can provide appropriately formatted DICOM images, as metal artifact subtraction can be challenging. We think that, as image formatting and software capabilities are continually refined, this technology will become an invaluable part of multiple subspecialties across orthopedic surgery, with potentially infinite clinical, educational, and research applications.
