Dimensional accuracy and precision and surgeon perception of additively manufactured bone models: effect of manufacturing technology and part orientation
Tóm tắt
Additively manufactured (AM) anatomical bone models are primarily utilized for training and preoperative planning purposes. As such, they must meet stringent requirements, with dimensional accuracy being of utmost importance. This study aimed to evaluate the precision and accuracy of anatomical bone models manufactured using three different AM technologies: digital light processing (DLP), fused deposition modeling (FDM), and PolyJetting (PJ), built in three different part orientations. Additionally, the study sought to assess surgeons’ perceptions of how well these models mimic real bones in simulated osteosynthesis. Computer-aided design (CAD) models of six human radii were generated from computed tomography (CT) imaging data. Anatomical models were then manufactured using the three aforementioned technologies and in three different part orientations. The surfaces of all models were 3D-scanned and compared with the original CAD models. Furthermore, an anatomical model of a proximal femur including a metastatic lesion was manufactured using the three technologies, followed by (mock) osteosynthesis performed by six surgeons on each type of model. The surgeons’ perceptions of the quality and haptic properties of each model were assessed using a questionnaire. The mean dimensional deviations from the original CAD model ranged between 0.00 and 0.13 mm with maximal inaccuracies < 1 mm for all models. In surgical simulation, PJ models achieved the highest total score on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (with 1 and 5 representing the lowest and highest level of agreement, respectively), (3.74 ± 0.99) in the surgeons’ perception assessment, followed by DLP (3.41 ± 0.99) and FDM (2.43 ± 1.02). Notably, FDM was perceived as unsuitable for surgical simulation, as the material melted during drilling and sawing. In conclusion, the choice of technology and part orientation significantly influenced the accuracy and precision of additively manufactured bone models. However, all anatomical models showed satisfying accuracies and precisions, independent of the AM technology or part orientation. The anatomical and functional performance of FDM models was rated by surgeons as poor.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Hung C-C, Li Y-T, Chou Y-C, Chen J-E, Wu C-C, Shen H-C, Yeh T-T. Conventional plate fixation method versus pre-operative virtual simulation and three-dimensional printing-assisted contoured plate fixation method in the treatment of anterior pelvic ring fracture. Int Orthop. 2019;43:425–31.
Ma L, Zhou Y, Zhu Y, Lin Z, Wang Y, Zhang Y, et al. 3D-printed guiding templates for improved osteosarcoma resection. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):23335.
Shuang F, Hu W, Shao Y, Li H, Zou H. Treatment of Intercondylar Humeral fractures with 3D-Printed osteosynthesis plates. Med (Baltim). 2016;95(3):e2461.
Kim D, Lim J-Y, Shim K-W, Han JW, Yi S, Kim KN, et al. Sacral reconstruction with a 3D-printed implant after hemisacrectomy in a patient with sacral osteosarcoma: 1-year follow-up result. Yonsei Med J. 2017;58(2):453–7.
Baauw M, Hellemondt GGv H, MLv, Spruit M. The accuracy of positioning of a custom-made implant within a large acetabular defect at revision arthroplasty of the hip. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2015;97–B(6):780–5.
Martelli N, Serrano C, van den Brink H, Pineau J, Prognon P, Borget I, El Batti S. Advantages and disadvantages of 3-dimensional printing in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery. 2016;159(6):1485–500.
Petzold R, Zeilhofer HF, Kalender WA. Rapid prototyping technology in medicine—basics and applications. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1999;23(5):277–84.
Leutenecker-Twelsiek B, Klahn C, Meboldt M. Considering Part Orientation in Design for Additive Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP. 2016;50:408–13.
Bittner-Frank M, Strassl A, Unger E, Hirtler L, Eckhart B, Koenigshofer M et al. Accuracy analysis of 3D bone fracture models: effects of computed tomography (CT) imaging and image segmentation [in press]. J Digit Imaging. 2024.
Gelaude F, Vander Sloten J, Lauwers B. Accuracy assessment of CT-based outer surface femur meshes. Comput Aided Surg. 2008;13(4):188–99.
Kumar R, Kumar M, Chohan JS. The role of additive manufacturing for biomedical applications: a critical review. J Manuf Process. 2021;64:828–50.
Shujaat S, da Costa Senior O, Shaheen E, Politis C, Jacobs R. Visual and haptic perceptibility of 3D printed skeletal models in orthognathic surgery. J Dent. 2021;109:103660.
Mowry SE, Jammal H, Myer CI, Solares CA, Weinberger P. A novel temporal bone Simulation Model using 3D Printing techniques. Otology & Neurotology. 2015;36(9):1562–5.
Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods. 2020;17(3):261–72.
Strano G, Hao L, Everson RM, Evans KE. A new approach to the design and optimisation of support structures in additive manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2013;66(9):1247–54.
Liu W, Li L, Kochhar AK. A method for assessing geometrical errors in layered manufacturing. Part 1: error interaction and transfer mechanisms. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 1998;14(9):637–43.
Smith EJ, Anstey JA, Venne G, Ellis RE. Using additive manufacturing in accuracy evaluation of reconstructions from computed tomography. Proc Institution Mech Eng Part H: J Eng Med. 2013;227(5):551–9.
Huotilainen E, Paloheimo M, Salmi M, Paloheimo K-S, Björkstrand R, Tuomi J, et al. Imaging requirements for medical applications of additive manufacturing. Acta Radiol. 2014;55(1):78–85.
van Eijnatten M, van Dijk R, Dobbe J, Streekstra G, Koivisto J, Wolff J. CT image segmentation methods for bone used in medical additive manufacturing. Med Eng Phys. 2018;51:6–16.
Msallem B, Sharma N, Cao S, Halbeisen FS, Zeilhofer H-F, Thieringer FM. Evaluation of the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed anatomical mandibular models using FFF, SLA, SLS, MJ, and BJ printing technology. J Clin Med. 2020;9(3):817.
Favier V, Zemiti N, Caravaca Mora O, Subsol G, Captier G, Lebrun R, et al. Geometric and mechanical evaluation of 3D-printing materials for skull base anatomical education and endoscopic surgery simulation - A first step to create reliable customized simulators. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0189486.
Nägl K, Reisinger A, Pahr DH. The biomechanical behavior of 3D printed human femoral bones based on generic and patient-specific geometries. 3D Print Med. 2022;8(1):35.
Pamplona M, Kocher M, Snethlage R, Aires Barros L. Drilling resistance: overview and outlook. Zeitschrift-Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Geowissenschaften. 2007;158(3):665.
Alabort E, Barba D, Reed RC. Design of metallic bone by additive manufacturing. Scripta Mater. 2019;164:110–4.