Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Virtual surgical planning and 3D printing in pediatric musculoskeletal oncological resections: a proof-of-concept description

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and objectives

Patient-specific models may have a role in planning and executing complex surgical procedures. However, creating patient-specific models with virtual surgical planning (VSP) has many steps, from initial imaging to finally realizing the three-dimensional printed model (3DPM). This manuscript evaluated the feasibility and potential benefits of multimodal imaging and geometric VSP and 3DPM in pediatric orthopedic tumor resection and reconstruction.

Materials and methods

Twelve children with Ewing's sarcoma, osteosarcoma, or chondrosarcoma were studied. Computed tomography (CT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were acquired as the standard-of-care. Bony and soft tissue components of the tumor and the adjacent bone were segmented to create a computer-generated 3D model of the region. VSP used the computer-generated 3D model. The Objet350 Stratasys™ polyjet printer printed the final physical model used for pre-surgical planning, intraoperative reference, and patient education. Clinical impact, the utility of the model, and its geometric accuracy were assessed.

Results

Subjectively, using the patient-specific model assisted in preoperative planning and intra-operative execution of the surgical plan. The mean difference between the models and the surgical resection was –0.09 mm (range: −0.29–0.45 mm). Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) of the cross-sectional area was −0.9994, linear regression r2 = 0.9989, and the Bland Altman plot at 95% confidence interval showed all data within boundaries.

Conclusion

We studied the geometric accuracy, utility and clinical impact of VSP and 3DPM produced from multi-modal imaging studies and concluded 3DPM accurately represented the patients' tumor and proved very useful to the surgeon in both the preoperative surgical planning, patient and family education and operative phases. Future studies will be planned to evaluate surgery procedure duration and other outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2019) Types of cancer that develop in children - bonce caners. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-in-children/types-of-childhood-cancers.html

  2. American Cancer Society (2020) Key statistics about bone cancer. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/bone-cancer/about/key-statistics.html

  3. Arndt CA et al (2012) Common musculoskeletal tumors of childhood and adolescence. Mayo Clin Proc 87(5):475–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gallaway KE, Ahn J, Callan AK (2020) Thirty-day outcomes following pediatric bone and soft tissue sarcoma surgery: a NSQIP pediatrics analysis. Sarcoma 2020:1283080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gaspar N et al (2015) Ewing sarcoma: current management and future approaches through collaboration. J Clin Oncol 33(27):3036–3046

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sangkhathat S (2015) Current management of pediatric soft tissue sarcomas. World J Clin Pediatr 4(4):94–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fang X et al (2018) Improved virtual surgical planning with 3D- multimodality image for malignant giant pelvic tumors. Cancer Manag Res 10:6769–6777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sternheim A et al (2015) Navigated pelvic osteotomy and tumor resection: a study assessing the accuracy and reproducibility of resection planes in sawbones and cadavers. J Bone Jt Surg Am 97(1):40–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ritacco LE et al (2017) Virtual planning and allograft preparation guided by navigation for reconstructive oncologic surgery: a technical report. JBJS Essent Surg Tech 7(4):e30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wong KC et al (2016) Patient-specific instrument can achieve same accuracy with less resection time than navigation assistance in periacetabular pelvic tumor surgery: a cadaveric study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11(2):307–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Grenacher L et al (2005) The role of 3-D imaging and computer-based postprocessing for surgery of the liver and pancreas. Rofo 177(9):1219–1226

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kosterhon M et al (2017) Three-dimensional cross-platform planning for complex spinal procedures: a new method adaptive to different navigation systems. Clin Spine Surg 30(7):E1000–E1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Heunis JC et al (2019) Use of three-dimensional printing and intraoperative navigation in the surgical resection of metastatic acetabular osteosarcoma. BMJ Case Rep 12(9):e230238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Punyaratabandhu T, Liacouras PC, Pairojboriboon S (2018) Using 3D models in orthopedic oncology: presenting personalized advantages in surgical planning and intraoperative outcomes. 3D Print Med. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-018-0035-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Makin G (2019) The current landscape of 3D printing in oncological surgical interventions. Future Oncol 15(26):2999–3002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fujiwara T, Sree DV, Stevenson J, Kaneuchi Y, Parry M, Tsuda Y, Le Nail LR, Medellin RM, Grimer R, Jeys L (2020) Acetabular reconstruction with an ice-cream cone prosthesis following resection of pelvic tumors: does computer navigation improve surgical outcome? J Surg Oncol 121(7):1104–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bosma SE, Cleven AHG, Dijkstra PDS (2019) Can navigation improve the ability to achieve tumor-free margins in pelvic and sacral primary bone sarcoma resections? a historically controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 477(7):1548–1559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Albergo JI, Farfalli GL, Ayerza MA, Ritacco LE, Aponte-Tinao LA (2021) Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in orthopedic oncology, which were the indications, problems and results in our first consecutive 203 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 47(2):424–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tack P, Victor J, Gemmel P, Annemans L (2016) 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: a systematic literature review. Biomed Eng Online. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-016-0236-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fujiwara T, Kaneuchi Y, Stevenson J, Parry M, Kurisunkal V, Clark R, Tsuda Y, Laitinen M, Grimer R, Jeys L (2021) Navigation-assisted pelvic resections and reconstructions for periacetabular chondrosarcomas. Eur J Surg Oncol 47(2):416–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Li J, Wang Z, Guo Z, Chen G-J, Yang M, Pei G-X (2014) Precise resection and biological reconstruction under navigation guidance for young patients with juxta-articular bone sarcoma in lower extremity. J Pediatr Orthop 34(1):101–108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nandra R, Matharu G, Stevenson J, Parry M, Grimer R, Jeys L (2019) Long-term outcomes after an initial experience of computer-navigated resection of primary pelvic and sacral bone tumors. Bone Jt J 101(B4):484–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Evrard R, Schubert T, Paul L, Docquier P-L (2019) Resection margins obtained with patient-specific instruments for resecting primary pelvic bone sarcomas: a case-control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105(4):781–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Farfalli GL, Albergo JI, Ritacco LE, Ayerza MA, Milano FE, Aponte-Tinao LA (2017) What is the expected learning curve in computer-assisted navigation for bone tumor resection? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(3):668–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pugliese L, Marconi S, Negrello E, Mauri V, Peri A, Gallo V, Auricchio F, Pietrabissa A (2018) The clinical use of 3D printing in surgery. Update Surg 70(3):381–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jentzsch T, Vlachopoulos L, Fürnstahl P, Müller DA, Fuchs B (2016) Tumor resection at the pelvis using three-dimensional planning and patient-specific instruments: a case series. World J Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-1006-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krauel L, Fenollosa F, Riaza L, Pérez M, Tarrado X, Morales A, Gomà J, Mora J (2015) Use of 3D prototypes for complex surgical oncologic cases. World J Surg 40(4):889–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ozturk AM, Sirinturk S, Kucuk L, Yaprak F, Govsa F, Ozer MA, Cagirici U, Sabah D (2018) Multidisciplinary assessment of planning and resection of complex bone tumor using patient-specific 3D model. Indian J Surg Oncol 10(1):115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stevenson JD, Laitinen MK, Parry MC, Sumathi V, Grimer RJ, Jeys LM (2018) The role of surgical margins in chondrosarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(9):1412–1418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yu X, Kou C, Bai W, Yu W, Zhu B, Zhang M, Hua W, Li Y, Duan R, Yin F (2020) Comparison of wide margin and inadequate margin for recurrence in sacral chordoma. Spine 45(12):814–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Li X, Moretti VM, Ashana AO, Lackman RD (2011) Impact of close surgical margin on local recurrence and survival in osteosarcoma. Int Orthop 36(1):131–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tsuda Y, Evans S, Stevenson JD, Parry M, Fujiwara T, Laitinen M, Outani H, Jeys L (2019) Is the width of a surgical margin associated with the outcome of disease in patients with peripheral chondrosarcoma of the pelvis? a multicenter study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 477(11):2432–2440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sluga M, Windhager R, Lang S, Heinzl H, Krepler P, Mittermayer F, Dominkus M, Zoubek A, Kotz R (2001) The role of surgery and resection margins in the treatment of ewings sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:394–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, 3D Printing and Innovation Lab, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, 700, Children’s Dr, Columbus, OH, 43205, USA

    Jayanthi Parthasarathy, Mitchell Rees & Bhavani Selvaraj

  2. University Hospitals/Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Brandon Jonard

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, 700, Children’s Dr, Columbus, OH, 43205, USA

    Thomas Scharschmidt

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Thomas Scharschmidt

Authors
  1. Jayanthi Parthasarathy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brandon Jonard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mitchell Rees
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bhavani Selvaraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas Scharschmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jayanthi Parthasarathy or Thomas Scharschmidt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parthasarathy, J., Jonard, B., Rees, M. et al. Virtual surgical planning and 3D printing in pediatric musculoskeletal oncological resections: a proof-of-concept description. Int J CARS 18, 95–104 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-022-02745-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-022-02745-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation