Advertisement

Three-dimensionally printed vertebrae with different bone densities for surgical training

  • Marco BurkhardEmail author
  • Philipp Fürnstahl
  • Mazda Farshad
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate whether 3D-printed vertebrae offer realistic haptic simulation of posterior pedicle screw placement and decompression surgery with normal to osteoporotic-like properties.

Methods

A parameterizable vertebra model was developed, adjustable in cortical and cancellous bone thicknesses. Based on this model, five different L3 vertebra types (α, β, γ1, γ2, and γ3) were designed and fourfold 3D-printed. Four spine surgeons assessed each vertebra type and a purchasable L3 Sawbones vertebra. Haptic behavior of six common steps in posterior spine surgery was rated from 1 to 10: 1–2: too soft, 3–4: osteoporotic, 5–6: normal, 7–8: hard, and 9–10: too hard. Torques were measured during pedicle screw insertion.

Results

In total, 24 vertebrae (six vertebra types times four examiners) were evaluated. Mean surgical assessment scores were: α 3.2 ± 0.9 (osteoporotic), β 1.9 ± 0.7 (too soft), γ1 4.7 ± 0.9 (osteoporotic–normal), γ2 6.3 ± 1.1 (normal), and γ3 7.5 ± 1.1 (hard). All surgeons considered the 3D-printed vertebrae α, γ1, and γ2 as more realistic than Sawbones vertebrae, which were rated with a mean score of 4.1 ± 1.7 (osteoporotic–normal). Mean pedicle screw insertion torques (Ncm) were: α 32 ± 4, β 12 ± 3, γ1 74 ± 4, γ2 129 ± 13, γ3 196 ± 34 and Sawbones 90 ± 11.

Conclusions

In this pilot study, 3D-printed vertebrae displayed haptically and biomechanically realistic simulation of posterior spinal procedures and outperformed Sawbones. This approach enables surgical training on bone density-specific vertebrae and provides an outlook toward future preoperative simulation on patient-specific spine replicas.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Spine surgery 3D printing Haptic simulation Preoperative training 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Dr. Michael Betz, Dr. José Spirig, and Dr. Cyrill Dennler, Department of Spine Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, for thoroughly assessing the vertebrae surrogates and to Dr. Lazaros Vlachopoulos, Fabio Carrillo, and Michael Hecht, Computer-Assisted Research and Development Group, Balgrist University Hospital, for their helpful support in the vertebrae construction. The authors gratefully acknowledge generous financial support by the Canton of Zurich (HSM II grant).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The presented study was conducted in accordance with Swiss and international law requirements. Ethical board’s approval was obtained from the Ethical Committee of the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (ID: BASEC Req-2017-00334).

Supplementary material

586_2018_5847_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (282 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 282 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Boos N, Webb JK (1997) Pedicle screw fixation in spinal disorders: a European view. Eur Spine J 6:2–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01676569 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LEA, Delamarter RB (2012) Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:67–76.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820cccfb CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergeson RK, Schwend RM, Delucia T et al (2008) How accurately do novice surgeons place thoracic pedicle screws with the free hand technique? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:501–507.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817b61af CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faraj AA, Webb JK (1997) Early complications of spinal pedicle screw. Eur Spine J 6:324–326.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01142678 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parker SL, Amin AG, Santiago-Dieppa D et al (2014) Incidence and clinical significance of vascular encroachment resulting from freehand placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:683–687.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atesok K, Mabrey JD, Jazrawi LM, Egol KA (2012) Surgical simulation in orthopaedic training. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 20:410–422.  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-20-06-410 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farshad M, Betz M, Farshad-Amacker NA, Moser M (2017) Accuracy of patient-specific template-guided vs. free-hand fluoroscopically controlled pedicle screw placement in the thoracic and lumbar spine: a randomized cadaveric study. Eur Spine J 26:738–749.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4728-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park HJ, Wang C, Choi KH, Kim HN (2018) Use of a life-size three-dimensional-printed spine model for pedicle screw instrumentation training. J Orthop Surg Res 13:86–95.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0788-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waran V, Narayanan V, Karuppiah R et al (2014) Utility of multimaterial 3D printers in creating models with pathological entities to enhance the training experience of neurosurgeons. J Neurosurg 120:489–492.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.11.JNS131066 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones DB, Sung R, Weinberg C et al (2016) Three-dimensional modeling may improve surgical education and clinical practice. Surg Innov 23:189–195.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350615607641 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paiva WS, Amorim R, Bezerra DAF, Masini M (2007) Application of the stereolithography technique in complex spine surgery. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 65:443–445.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-282X2007000300015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Inceoglu S, Burghardt A, Akbay A et al (2005) Trabecular architecture of lumbar vertebral pedicle. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1485–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Inceoglu S, Kilincer C, Tami A, Mclain RF (2007) Cortex of the pedicle of the vertebral arch. Part II: microstructure. J Neurosurg Spine 7:347–351.  https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI-07/09/347 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bühler DW, Berlemann U, Oxland TR, Nolte LP (1998) Moments and forces during pedicle screw insertion. In vitro and in vivo measurements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:1220–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kwok AW, Finkelstein JA, Woodside T et al (1996) Insertional torque and pull-out strengths of conical and cylindrical pedicle screws in cadaveric bone. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:2429–2434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sandén B, Olerud C, Larsson S, Robinson Y (2010) Insertion torque is not a good predictor of pedicle screw loosening after spinal instrumentation: a prospective study in 8 patients. Patient Saf Surg 4:14–18CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tomlinson JE, Yiasemidou M, Watts AL et al (2016) Cadaveric spinal surgery simulation: a comparison of cadaver types. Glob Spine J 6:357–361.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1563724 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tanner G, Vojdani S, Komatsu DE, Barsi JM (2017) Development of a saw bones model for training pedicle screw placement in scoliosis. BMC Res Notes 10:678–682.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-3029-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ryu WHA, Mostafa AE, Dharampal N et al (2017) Design-based comparison of spine surgery simulators: optimizing educational features of surgical simulators. World Neurosurg 106:870–877.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.07.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pfandler M, Lazarovici M, Stefan P et al (2017) Virtual reality-based simulators for spine surgery: a systematic review. Spine J 17:1352–1363.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.05.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liew Y, Beveridge E, Demetriades AK, Hughes MA (2015) 3D printing of patient-specific anatomy: a tool to improve patient consent and enhance imaging interpretation by trainees. Br J Neurosurg 29:712–714.  https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2015.1026799 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu AM, Shao ZX, Wang JS et al (2015) The accuracy of a method for printing three- dimensional spinal models. PLoS ONE 10:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yánez A, Herrera A, Martel O et al (2016) Compressive behaviour of gyroid lattice structures for human cancellous bone implant applications. Mater Sci Eng C 68:445–448.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.06.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ali D, Sen S (2017) Finite element analysis of mechanical behavior, permeability and fluid induced wall shear stress of high porosity scaffolds with gyroid and lattice-based architectures. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 75:262–270.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.07.035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mughir AMA, Yusof MI, Abdullah S, Ahmad S (2010) Morphological comparison between adolescent and adult lumbar pedicles using computerised tomography scanning. Surg Radiol Anat 32:587–592.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-009-0612-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsBalgrist University Hospital, University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Computer-Assisted Research and Development GroupBalgrist University Hospital, University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations