Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/1672
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorThayaparan, G. K.-
dc.contributor.authorD'Urso, P. S.-
dc.contributor.otherOwbridge, M. G.-
dc.contributor.otherThompson, R. G.-
dc.date2018-07-
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-03T01:03:47Z-
dc.date.available2019-07-03T01:03:47Z-
dc.date.issued2019-06-
dc.identifier.citationEur Spine J. 2019 Jun;28(Suppl 2):18-24.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0940-6719en_US
dc.identifier.issn1432-0932en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/1672-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: At 6-month follow-up, the patient reported resolution of symptoms. No evidence of implant dysfunction was observed on radiography. CONCLUSION: 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.en_US
dc.publisherSpringer Verlagen_US
dc.subjectPatient-specific solutionsen_US
dc.subjectBiomodellingen_US
dc.subject3D-printingen_US
dc.subjectLumbosacralen_US
dc.subjectLumbar Spine Surgeryen_US
dc.subjectPatient-specific Factorsen_US
dc.subjectSurgeon Requirementsen_US
dc.subjectHealthcare Efficienciesen_US
dc.subjectEpworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.titleDesigning patient-specific solutions using biomodelling and 3D-printing for revision lumbar spine surgery.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00586-018-5684-zen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleEuropean Spine Journalen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29992449en_US
dc.description.affiliatesAnatomics Pty Ltd, St Kilda, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.type.studyortrialDescriptive Studyen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.