4.5 Article

Three dimensional patient-specific printed cutting guides for closing-wedge distal femoral osteotomy

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 619-624

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4043-3

关键词

Lateral compartment knee osteoarthritis; Valgus knee; Medial closing-wedge distal femoral osteotomy; Patient-specific surgical guides; 3D printing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeMedial closing-wedge distal femoral osteotomy (MCWDFO) was used to treat valgus knee malalignment combined with lateral compartment disease. The clinical outcome of the osteotomy depends on the accurate correction of valgus malalignment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a MCWDFO assisted by three-dimensional (3D)-printed cutting guides and locking guides.Patients and methodsThirty-three consecutive patients (33 knees) were operated on using the same MCWDFO. 3D-printed cutting guides and locking guides were used to locate the osteotomy cut plane and to facilitate closing the wedge in 12 patients (3D-guide group). Another 21 patients (conventional group) underwent MCWDFO following the conventional technique. The desired correction was defined as a weight-bearing line (WBL) coordinate 50% of the width of the tibial plateau from the medial tibial margin. The deviation between the planned and executed WBL coordinate, surgical time and fluoroscopic time were compared.ResultsThe mean deviation between the planned and executed WBL coordinate was 4.9% in the 3D-guide group and 7.6% in the conventional group (P=0.024). Shorter surgical time was found in the 3D-guide group (mean, 77.7 minutes vs. mean, 96.5 minutes; P<0.001), while the mean number of intra-operative fluoroscopic images was 6.1, compared with 34.7 in the conventional group (P<0.001).ConclusionThe use of 3D-printed cutting guides and locking guides can increase the precision of the MCWDFO in patients with lateral compartment disease and valgus deformity, making our surgery more efficiency and occupying less fluoroscopic time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据