Hong Kong researchers explore the use of 3D printed medical models but advance in a more unique direction with concerns over infection. Detailing their findings in the recently published ‘A review of the manufacturing process and infection rate of 3D-printed models and guides sterilized by hydrogen peroxide plasma and utilized intra-operatively,’ the authors discuss the use of innovative bespoke devices for surgical planning.
As 3D printing has made impacts within the medical field, medical professionals, patients, and their families benefit due to better avenues for diagnosis, treatment, and education for everyone involved. But there are even more specific uses for 3D printed medical models today in promoting patient-specific treatment with improved pre-operative planning procedures and even intra-operative processes.
“In the specialty of orthopedics, 3D models can allow for visualization of bony anatomy and implant contouring, whilst guides can be created to direct osteotomies as well as screw entry sites,” explained the researchers.
Much attention is paid to the strides being made due to 3D printing, but outside issues such as sterility are critical to the health of patients also. Typical methods include ethylene oxide (EtO) gas and hydrogen peroxide plasma, which is a result of excitation beyond the gaseous phase—with free-radical formation allowing for sterility.
To date, the University of Hong Kong has produced over 300 3D models and guides. Beginning in 2015, their orthopedic academic unit began 3D printing models and guides on-site; and while they were at first fabricating models exclusively for orthopedics, over time they also began 3D printing for ‘other surgical contexts’ too. The authors confirm that out of the 300 models produced, 114 have been used for intra-operative purposes. Their review goes on to cite details regarding cases using models and guides, identifying those in which infections occurred, and highlighting risk factors.
3D prints were sterilized with hydrogen peroxide plasma, and low temperatures prevented deformation in material.
“A surgical time-out procedure ensured that the printout was used for the correct patient, anatomical region and procedure, in accordance to initials upon the surface,” explained the authors. “Post-operatively, printouts were similarly subject to low temperature disinfection then returned to the surgeon in charge.”
The researchers examined 3D prints from 124 patients with models used intra-operatively during surgical planning and management.
“Seven cases were excluded as printouts were not constructed from ABS, of which four cases utilized nylon, two case utilized polyetherimide (Ultem1010 CG), and one case utilized cobalt chrome,” explained the authors.
“Three cases were excluded because of inadequate follow-up. A total of 114 models remained for subsequent analysis. Fifty nine out of 114 (51.8%) were anatomical models utilized on-table for planning and / or implant contouring. The remaining 55/114 (48.2%) were utilized as guides or jigs specific to patient anatomy to facilitate corrective osteotomies, screw insertion or pin placement.”
Ultimately, 10.9 percent of the guides or jigs developed infections, while 3.3 percent of the models developed infections at the surgical sites.
“All six cases of guides/jigs with infection were utilized to facilitate osteotomies. Both models with infection were utilized for implant contouring, one during fixation of a pilon fracture and the other for an orbital floor blowout fracture,” stated the researchers.
Pointing out that while the infection rate of 7 percent was comparable to previous literature published regarding traditional techniques, the authors realize the importance of users to ‘be aware of potential caveats,’ despite the overall safety of the application. There are also intrinsic challenges in the fabrication of patient-specific devices and ensuring the safety of tissue biocompatibility.
“It is worth noting that prior studies detailing infection-related outcomes of 3D printouts have not explicitly utilized them intra-operatively, and this is one of the first studies to have done as such. Our overall impression was that our process of sterilization and on-table usage is safe, and that surgical complexity and tissue manipulation as reflected by increased operating time were the main culprits for infection,” concluded the authors.
“In detailing the design, printing, and sterilization of 3D printouts as well as infection-related outcomes amongst this sizable cohort, we demonstrate that our production process is safe for continuation and may be adopted elsewhere.”
What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.[‘A review of the manufacturing process and infection rate of 3D-printed models and guides sterilized by hydrogen peroxide plasma and utilized intra-operatively’]