| Title |
Designing patient-specific solutions using biomodelling and 3D-printing for revision lumbar spine surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-018-5684-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ganesha K. Thayaparan, Mark G. Owbridge, Robert G. Thompson, Paul S. D’Urso |
| Abstract |
Despite the variety of "off-the-shelf" implants and instrumentation, outcomes following revision lumbosacral surgery are inconstant. Revision fusion surgery presents a unique set of patient-specific challenges that may not be adequately addressed using universal kits. This study aims to describe how patient-specific factors, surgeon requirements, and healthcare efficiencies were integrated to design and manufacture anatomically matched surgical tools and implants to complement a minimally invasive posterior approach for revision lumbar fusion surgery. A 72-year-old woman presented with sciatica and a complex L5-S1 pseudoarthrosis 12 months after L2-S1 fixation surgery for symptomatic degenerative scoliosis. Patient computed tomography data were used to develop 1:1 scale biomodels of the bony lumbosacral spine for pre-operative planning, patient education, and intraoperative reference. The surgeon collaborated with engineers and developed a patient-specific 3D-printed titanium lumbosacral fixation implant secured by L2-L5, S2, and iliac screws. Sizes and trajectories for the S2 and iliac screws were simulated using biomodelling to develop a stereotactic 3D-printed drill guide. Self-docking 3D-printed nylon tubular retractors specific to patient tissue depth and bony anatomy at L5-S1 were developed for a minimally invasive transforaminal approach. The pre-selected screws were separately sourced, bundled with the patient-specific devices, and supplied as a kit to the hospital before surgery. At 6-month follow-up, the patient reported resolution of symptoms. No evidence of implant dysfunction was observed on radiography. Pre-operative planning combined with biomodelling and 3D printing is a viable process that enables surgical techniques, equipment, and implants to meet patient and surgeon-specific requirements for revision lumbar fusion surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 100 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 19% |
| Unknown | 34 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 21% |
| Engineering | 16 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 40 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,872,450
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#164
of 4,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,046
of 326,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#4
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,686 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.