Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Customized 3-dimensional-printed Vertebral Implants for Spinal Reconstruction After Tumor Resection: A Systematic Review.
Hirase, Takashi; Vemu, Sree M; Boddapati, Venkat; Ling, Jeremiah F; So, Matthew; Saifi, Comron; Marco, Rex A W; Bird, Justin E.
Afiliación
  • Hirase T; Houston Methodist Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Houston.
  • Vemu SM; Texas A&M University Health Science Center College of Medicine, Bryan, TX.
  • Boddapati V; Houston Methodist Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Houston.
  • Ling JF; New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.
  • So M; Texas A&M University Health Science Center College of Medicine, Bryan, TX.
  • Saifi C; Houston Methodist Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Houston.
  • Marco RAW; Houston Methodist Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Houston.
  • Bird JE; Houston Methodist Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Houston.
Clin Spine Surg ; 37(1): 31-39, 2024 02 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37074792
ABSTRACT
STUDY

DESIGN:

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE:

To examine the outcomes of customized 3-dimensional (3D) printed implants for spinal reconstruction after tumor resection. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Various techniques exist for spinal reconstruction after tumor resection. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the utility of customized 3D-printed implants for spinal reconstruction after tumor resection. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed according to "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" guidelines. All level I-V evidence studies reporting the use of 3D-printed implants for spinal reconstruction after tumor resection were included.

RESULTS:

Eleven studies (65 patients; mean age, 40.9 ± 18.1 y) were included. Eleven patients (16.9%) underwent intralesional resections with positive margins and 54 patients (83.1%) underwent en bloc spondylectomy with negative margins. All patients underwent vertebral reconstruction with 3D-printed titanium implants. Tumor involvement was in the cervical spine in 21 patients (32.3%), thoracic spine in 29 patients (44.6%), thoracolumbar junction in 2 patients (3.1%), and lumbar spine in 13 patients (20.0%). Ten studies with 62 patients reported perioperative outcomes radiologic/oncologic status at final follow-up. At the mean final follow-up of 18.5 ± 9.8 months, 47 patients (75.8%) had no evidence of disease, 9 patients (14.5%) were alive with recurrence, and 6 patients (9.7%) had died of disease. One patient who underwent C3-C5 en bloc spondylectomy had an asymptomatic subsidence of 2.7 mm at the final follow-up. Twenty patients that underwent thoracic and/or lumbar reconstruction had a mean subsidence of 3.8 ± 4.7 mm at the final follow-up; however, only 1 patient had a symptomatic subsidence that required revision surgery. Eleven patients (17.7%) had one or more major complications.

CONCLUSION:

There is some evidence to suggest that using customized 3D-printed titanium or titanium alloy implants is an effective technique for spinal reconstruction after tumor resection. There is a high incidence of asymptomatic subsidence and major complications that are similar to other methods of reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level V, systematic review of level I-V studies.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Columna Vertebral / Titanio Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Límite: Adult / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Clin Spine Surg Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Columna Vertebral / Titanio Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Límite: Adult / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Clin Spine Surg Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article