Advertisement

3D printing in experimental orthopaedic surgery: do it yourself

  • Irene I. López-TorresEmail author
  • Pablo Sanz-Ruíz
  • Victor E. León-Román
  • Federico Navarro-García
  • Rodrigo Priego-Sánchez
  • Javier Vaquero-Martín
Original Article • BIOMATERIAL - EXPERIMENTAL SURGERY
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Periprosthetic infection is considered an increasing incidence pathology whose therapeutic strategies can be defined as unsatisfactory. Currently, animal models are employed to study its physiopathology and strategic therapies, but non-species-specific materials are implanted as foreign bodies. The use of these implants implies intrinsic instability, which hinders the development of a biofilm on their surfaces and complicates the post-operative recovery of the animal. The objective of the present study is the design of a species-specific implant for the New Zealand white (NZW) rabbit by means of 3D printing.

Materials and methods

A CT scan of the knee of a NZW rabbit was performed, and the tibial surface was reconstructed in order to fabricate a species-specific tibial plateau using Horos® and Autodesk® Meshmixer™ software. This implant was inserted in fifteen NZW rabbits, and the assessment of its stability was based on the position of the limb at rest and the animal weight-bearing capacity. Biofilm formation on the surface was demonstrated by crystal violet staining.

Results

A 1.81 cm × 1 cm × 1.24 cm stainless steel implant was designed. It consisted of a 4-mm-thick tibial plate with a rough surface and an eccentric metaphyseal anchoring. All of the animals exhibited hyperflexion of the operated limb immediately post-operative, and 100% could apply full weight bearing from day 5 after surgery.

Conclusions

The species-specific design of implants in experimental surgery encourages rapid recovery of the animal and the development of a biofilm on their surfaces, making them ideal for the study of the physiopathology and for establishing possible therapeutic targets for prosthetic infection.

Keywords

Periprosthetic joint infection Animal model Implant 3D printing 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by Santander-UCM Research Grants (PR26/16) and Mutual Medica Foundation Research Grants (2017).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Malizos KN (2017) Global forum: the burden of bone and joint infections: a growing demand for more resources. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:e20.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parvizi J, Pawasarat IM, Azzam KA, Joshi A, Hansen EN, Bozic KJ (2010) Periprosthetic joint infection: the economic impact of methicillin-resistant infections. J Arthroplasty 25:103–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.04.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurtz SM, Lau E, Watson H, Schmier JK, Parvizi J (2012) Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty 27:61–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lora-Tamayo J, Murillo O, Iribarren JA, Soriano A, Sanchez-Somolinos M, Baraia-Etxaburu JM, Rico A, Palomino J, Rodriguez-Pardo D, Horcajada JP, Benito N, Bahamonde A, Granados A, del Toro MD, Cobo J, Riera M, Ramos A, Jover-Saenz A, Ariza J, Infection RGftSoP (2013) A large multicenter study of methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic joint infections managed with implant retention. Clin Infect Dis 56:182–194.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koyonos L, Zmistowski B, Della Valle CJ, Parvizi J (2011) Infection control rate of irrigation and debridement for periprosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:3043–3048.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1910-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jiranek WA, Waligora AC, Hess SR, Golladay GL (2015) Surgical treatment of prosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee: changing paradigms? J Arthroplasty 30:912–918.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.03.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garcia S, Soriano A, Esteban P, Almela M, Gallart X, Mensa J (2005) Usefulness of adding antibiotic to cement in one stage exchange of chronic infection in total hip arthroplasty. Med Clin (Barc) 125:138–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schindler M, Christofilopoulos P, Wyssa B, Belaieff W, Garzoni C, Bernard L, Lew D, Hoffmeyer P, Uckay I (2011) Poor performance of microbiological sampling in the prediction of recurrent arthroplasty infection. Int Orthop 35:647–654.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1014-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anagnostakos K (2017) Therapeutic use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in the treatment of hip and knee joint infections. J Bone Joint Infect 2:29–37.  https://doi.org/10.7150/jbji.16067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cordero J, Munuera L, Folgueira MD (1994) Influence of metal implants on infection. An experimental study in rabbits. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:717–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fadero PE, Shah M (2014) Three dimensional (3D) modelling and surgical planning in trauma and orthopaedics. Surgeon 12:328–333.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2014.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arnal-Burro J, Perez-Mananes R, Gallo-Del-Valle E, Igualada-Blazquez C, Cuervas-Mons M, Vaquero-Martin J (2017) Three dimensional-printed patient-specific cutting guides for femoral varization osteotomy: do it yourself. Knee 24:1359–1368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2017.04.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perez-Mananes R, Burro JA, Manaute JR, Rodriguez FC, Martin JV (2016) 3D surgical printing cutting guides for open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: do it yourself. J Knee Surg 29:690–695.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1572412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Toole GA (2011) Microtiter dish biofilm formation assay. J Vis Exp.  https://doi.org/10.3791/2437 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Auricchio F, Marconi S (2016) 3D printing: clinical applications in orthopaedics and traumatology. EFORT Open Rev 1:121–127.  https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.1.000012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frame M, Leach W (2014) DIY 3D printing of custom orthopaedic implants: a proof of concept study. Surg Technol Int 24:314–317Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang H, Wu G, Zhang J, Zhou K, Yin B, Su X, Qiu G, Yang G, Zhang X, Zhou G, Wu Z (2016) Osteogenic effect of controlled released rhBMP-2 in 3D printed porous hydroxyapatite scaffold. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 141:491–498.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2016.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ofluoglu EA, Bulent E, Derya AM, Sancar BY, Akin G, Bekir T, Erhan E (2012) Efficiency of antibiotic-loaded polymethylmethacrylate rods for treatment of the implant-related infections in rat spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 25:E48–E52.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182425b93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clasper JC, Stapley SA, Bowley DM, Kenward CE, Taylor V, Watkins PE (2001) Spread of infection, in an animal model, after intramedullary nailing of an infected external fixator pin track. J Orthop Res 19:155–159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-0266(00)00023-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Belmatoug N, Cremieux AC, Bleton R, Volk A, Saleh-Mghir A, Grossin M, Garry L, Carbon C (1996) A new model of experimental prosthetic joint infection due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a microbiologic, histopathologic, and magnetic resonance imaging characterization. J Infect Dis 174:414–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu Y, Tay JH (2001) Metabolic response of biofilm to shear stress in fixed-film culture. J Appl Microbiol 90:337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carli AV, Bhimani S, Yang X, Shirley MB, de Mesy Bentley KL, Ross FP, Bostrom MP (2017) Quantification of peri-implant bacterial load and in vivo biofilm formation in an innovative, clinically representative mouse model of periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:e25.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cordero J, Munuera L, Folgueira MD (1996) The influence of the chemical composition and surface of the implant on infection. Injury 27(Suppl 3):SC34–SC37Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chang CC, Merritt K (1994) Infection at the site of implanted materials with and without preadhered bacteria. J Orthop Res 12:526–531.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100120409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arens S, Schlegel U, Printzen G, Ziegler WJ, Perren SM, Hansis M (1996) Influence of materials for fixation implants on local infection. An experimental study of steel versus titanium DCP in rabbits. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:647–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tokarski AT, Novack TA, Parvizi J (2015) Is tantalum protective against infection in revision total hip arthroplasty? Bone Joint J 97-B:45–49.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.97b1.34236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Poultsides LA, Papatheodorou LK, Karachalios TS, Khaldi L, Maniatis A, Petinaki E, Malizos KN (2008) Novel model for studying hematogenous infection in an experimental setting of implant-related infection by a community-acquired methicillin-resistant S. aureus strain. J Orthop Res 26:1355–1362.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.20608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Helbig L, Simank HG, Lorenz H, Putz C, Wolfl C, Suda AJ, Moghaddam A, Schmidmaier G, Guehring T (2014) Establishment of a new methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus animal model of osteomyelitis. Int Orthop 38:891–897.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2149-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gregorio Marañón General HospitalMadridSpain
  2. 2.Surgery Department, Faculty of MedicineComplutense UniversityMadridSpain
  3. 3.General Hospital of VillalbaCollado Villalba, MadridSpain
  4. 4.Department of microbiology, Faculty of PharmacyComplutense University of MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations