Background context:
Spinal deformities are very challenging to treat and have a great risk of neurological complications due to hardware placement during corrective surgery. Various techniques have been introduced to ensure safe and accurate placement of pedicle screws. Patient-specific screw guides with pre-drawn and pre-validated trajectory seems to be an attractive option.
Purpose:
We have focused on developing 3D printing technique for complex spinal deformities in India. This study also aimed to compare the placement of pedicle screw with 3D printing and free hand technique.
Study design/settings:
This is a retrospective comparative clinical study at an academic institutional setting.
Patient sample:
A total of 20 patients were enrolled during the study, 10 were operated with the help of 3D printing (group 1) and 10 were operated with freehand technique (group 2). Group 1 included 6 congenital, 3 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), one post tubercular kyphosis and Group 2 included 5 congenital, 4 AIS and one post tubercular kyphosis patient.
Outcome measures:
Primary outcomes were measured in terms of screw violation and secondary outcome were measured in terms of Surgical time, Blood loss, Radiation exposure (no. of shoots required) and complications.
Methods:
MIMICS v18.0 Software was used for 3D reconstruction from CT scan images of all the patients. 3-Matic software was used to create drill guide. 3-D printer from Stratasys Mojo ABS P 430 model material cartilage (a thermoplastic material) was used for printing of vertebrae model and jigs. Two sample test of proportion was used to compare correctly and wrongly pedicle screw placement with 3D printing and freehand technique. T-test with equal variance was used for operating surgical time and blood loss. This work was carried out by collaboration of Orthopaedics Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and Biomedical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi. This project received the grant of USD 60000 from Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India under DBT Innovative young Biotechnologist Award. No study-specific conflicts of interest-associated biases is declared by the authors.
Results:
No superior or inferior screw violation was observed in any of our patients in either group. We found significant (p=0.03) difference between 2 groups regarding perfect screw placement in favour of 3D printing. There were 13 grade 2 medial perforations in free hand group and 3 in 3D printing group. There was no grade 3 medial perforation in either group. There were 6 grade 2 lateral perforations in free hand group and 7 in 3D printing group were observed. There were 3 grade 3 lateral perforation in free hand group and 2 in 3D printing group were observed. Analysis showed a statistically significant (p-value: 0.005) medial violation in free hand group. Surgical time was significantly (p-value: 0.03) less in 3D printing group as compared to free hand group. Mean Blood loss was higher in free hand group, however it was not statistically significant (p-value: 0.3) in 3D printing group. Fluoroscopic shots required were less in number in 3D printing group in comparison to free hand group. There was no neurological deficit in any of the patient in any group.
Conclusions:
In our study, focusing on spinal deformities statistically significant higher rate of accurate screw positioning and higher number of inserted screws with 3D printing was possible due to enhanced safety particularly at apical levels. As such, spinal deformities are difficult to treat worldwide. In India, these deformities are often neglected and present at a very late and much more deformed state when their treatment becomes even more challenging. Developing these patient specific drill templates will enable an average spine surgeon to treat these patients with much ease and safety.