RESUMEN
Knowledge of the minimal detectable bone fracture gap is essential in three-dimensional (3D) models, particularly in pre-operative planning of osteosynthesis to avoid overlooking gaps. In this study, defined incisions and bony displacements ranging from 100 to 400 µm were created in diaphyseal radii in 20 paired forearm specimens and verified with light microscopy. The specimens were scanned utilizing different computed tomography (CT) technologies/scanners, specimen positionings, scan protocols, image segmentations, and processing protocols. Inter- and intra-operator variabilities were reported as coefficient kappa. In CT images, fracture gaps of 100 µm and bone lamellae of 300 µm and 400 µm width were identified at a rate of 80 to 100%, respectively, independent of the investigated settings. In contrast, only 400µm incisions and bony displacements were visible in digital 3D models, with detection rates dependent on CT technology, image segmentation, and post-processing algorithm. 3D bone models based on state-of-the-art CT imaging can reliably visualize clinically relevant bone fracture gap sizes. However, verification of fractures to be surgically addressed should be verified with the original CT image series.
RESUMEN
The introduction of three-dimensional (3D) printed anatomical models has garnered interest in pre-operative planning, especially in orthopedic and trauma surgery. Identifying potential error sources and quantifying their effect on the model dimensional accuracy are crucial for the applicability and reliability of such models. In this study, twenty radii were extracted from anatomic forearm specimens and subjected to osteotomy to simulate a defined fracture of the distal radius (Colles' fracture). Various factors, including two different computed tomography (CT) technologies (energy-integrating detector (EID) and photon-counting detector (PCD)), four different CT scanners, two scan protocols (i.e., routine and high dosage), two different scan orientations, as well as two segmentation algorithms were considered to determine their effect on 3D model accuracy. Ground truth was established using 3D reconstructions of surface scans of the physical specimens. Results indicated that all investigated variables significantly impacted the 3D model accuracy (p < 0.001). However, the mean absolute deviation fell within the range of 0.03 ± 0.20 to 0.32 ± 0.23 mm, well below the 0.5 mm threshold necessary for pre-operative planning. Intra- and inter-operator variability demonstrated fair to excellent agreement for 3D model accuracy, with an intra-class correlation (ICC) of 0.43 to 0.92. This systematic investigation displayed dimensional deviations in the magnitude of sub-voxel imaging resolution for all variables. Major pitfalls included missed or overestimated bone regions during the segmentation process, necessitating additional manual editing of 3D models. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that 3D bone fracture models can be obtained with clinical routine scanners and scan protocols, utilizing a simple global segmentation threshold, thereby providing an accurate and reliable tool for pre-operative planning.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
