Journal of Orthopedics and Joint Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles


3D Printing in Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Vishnu Senthil

Keywords : Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses chart, Template, Three-dimensional printing, Total hip arthroplasty/total hip replacement

Citation Information : Senthil V. 3D Printing in Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. 2023; 5 (2):41-44.

DOI: 10.5005/jojs-10079-1116

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-07-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Introduction: Three-dimensional (3D) technology, also called by various names rapid prototyping, additive manufacturing, or solid free-form technology, has gained momentum over the last 2 decades. Initially, its application was limited because it was seen as unobtainable and expensive with limited clinical application. Initially, it was created by subtraction from the raw material but is currently manufactured by an additive process. 3D printing is a process in which objects are fabricated by fusing or depositing materials in layers from the fed computer data. The physical model is built in layers, with one thin layer at a time after the formulation of the digital design in standard triangle language (STL) format. The physical model is manufactured using both solid and liquid elements and also a large array of materials, including plastics, metals, and ceramics. This facilitates computer-aided design to develop and manufacture orthopedic devices and instruments. Materials and methods: The search words included all the synonyms of 3D printing, prototype, rapid prototyping, and additive printing about arthroplasty in the abstract. The results were limited to English language and human samples. The comprehensive search was run through Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane and nonindexed citations to generate papers incorporating 3D printing and arthroplasty primarily. The result dates back from 1908 to March 2018. The total number of papers generated was 4,554. The duplication of papers was reduced to 2,395. The systemic search results for Ovid Medline, Epub ahead of print, in-process and other nonindexed citations, Ovid Medline® Daily, Ovid Medline, and Versions (R). Results: The 2,395 abstracts were scanned for the involvement of 3D printing or rapid prototyping involving the keyword arthroplasty of any region. A total of 58 articles were eligible. The distribution of papers in various regions was hip (21), hip and knee (five), knee (21), pelvic and hip (six), proximal interphalangeal (PIP) (one), shoulder (three), and wrist (one). Conclusion: Three-dimensional (3D) printing application in orthopedic arthroplasty is very exciting and has the definite potential to alter the future of the orthopedic practice. It can mimic and reproduce the complex structure from severe to complicated cases into a physical model that can be used in preoperatively surgical planning of joint arthroplasty. Patient-specific guides can be generated to serve as cutting guides during the surgery. 3D printing facilitates accurate preoperative planning and better outcome, even in complex and deformed cases. The use of 3D printing improves the clinical outcome in arthroplasty. Limitations are the results of long-term use, quality of the model, cost of production, and production time.

  1. Ventola CL. Medical applications for 3D printing: current and projected uses. P T 2014;39(10):704–711.
  2. Venkateswaran N. Opportunities and challenges of 3D printing technology–an Indian perspective. Int J Curr Res 2015;7(5):16552–16555.
  3. Gibson, I, Rosen D, Sticker B. Additive manufacturing Technologies, Springer Science + Business Media. New York. 2016
  4. Crawford M. Manufacturing in Layers: 3D Printing's Impact on Orthopedics, Orthopedic Design & Technology Magazine, online, July/August 2017
  5. Auricchio F, Marconi S. 3D printing: clinical applications in orthopaedics and traumatology. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1(5):121–127. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000012
  6. Mulford JS, Babazadeh S, Mackay N. Three-dimensional printing in orthopaedic surgery: review of current and future applications. ANZ J Surg 2016;86(9):648–653. DOI: 10.1111/ans.13533
  7. Diment LE, Thompson MS, Bergmann JHM. Clinical efficacy and effectiveness of 3D printing: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2017;7(12):e016891. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016891
  8. Kravitz ND, Bowman J. A paradigm shift in orthodontic marketing. Seminars in Orthodontics 2016;22(4):297–300. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2016.08.010
  9. Dai KR, Yan MN, Zhu ZA, et al. Computer-aided custom-made hemipelvic prosthesis used in extensive pelvic lesions. J Arthroplasty 2007;22(7):981–986. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.002
  10. Won SH, Lee YK, Ha YC, et al. Improving preoperative planning for complex total hip replacement with a rapid prototype model enabling surgical simulation. Bone Joint J 2013;95B(11):1458–1463. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.31878
  11. Peters P, Langlotz F, Nolte LP. Computer assisted screw insertion into real 3D rapid prototyping pelvis models. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2002;17(5):376–382. DOI: 10.1016/s0268-0033(02)00028-1
  12. Guarino J, Tennyson S, McCain G, et al. Rapid prototyping technology for surgeries of the pediatric spine and pelvis: benefits analysis. J Pediatr Orthop 2007;27(8):955–960. DOI: 10.1097/bpo.0b013e3181594ced
  13. Jeong HS, Park KJ, Kil KM, et al. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis using 3D printing for shaft fractures of clavicles: technical note. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014;134(11):1551–1555. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-014-2075-8
  14. Sassoon A, Nam D, Nunley R, et al. Systematic review of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: new but not improved. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473(1):151–158. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3804-6
  15. Li H, Wang L, Mao Y, et al. Revision of complex acetabular defects using cages with the aid of rapid prototyping. J Arthroplasty 2013;28(10):1770–1775. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.12.019
  16. Victor J, Dujardin J, Vandenneucker H, et al. Patient-specific guides do not improve accuracy in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472(1):263–271. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-2997-4
  17. White PB, Ranawat AS. Patient-Specific Total Knees Demonstrate a Higher Manipulation Rate Compared to “Off-the-Shelf Implants”. J Arthroplasty 2016;31(1):107–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.07.041
  18. Summit S. “Additive manufacturing of a prosthetic limb”, Rapid Prototyping of Biomaterials, Principles, and Applications, Woodhead Publishing. 2014; pp 285–296.
  19. Maruthappu M, Keogh B. How might 3D printing affect clinical practice? BMJ 2014;349:g7709. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7709
  20. Ochi M, Nakasa T, Kamei G, et al. Regenerative medicine in orthopedics using cells, scaffold, and microRNA. J Orthop Sci 2014;19(4):521–528. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-014-0575-6
  21. Fedorovich NE, Alblas J, Hennink WE, et al. Organ printing: the future of bone regeneration? Trends Biotechnol 2011;29(12):601–606. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2011.07.001
  22. Lee CH, Rodeo SA, Fortier LA, et al. Protein-releasing polymeric scaffolds induce fibrochondrocytic differentiation of endogenous cells for knee meniscus regeneration in sheep. Sci Transl Med 2014;6(266):266ra171. DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3009696
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.