BMC surgery · 2023
Application of preoperative 3D printing in the internal fixation of posterior rib fractures with embracing device: a cohort study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhou Xuetao, Zhang Dongsheng, Xie Zexin, Yang Yang, Feng Lei, Hou Chunjuan, Chen Menghui, Liang Zheng, Zhang Guoliang, Lu Huiqing
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To explore the impact of preoperative 3D printing on the fixation of posterior rib fractures utilizing a memory alloy embracing device of rib under thoracoscopy.
METHODS: The enrolled patients were divided into the 3D printing (11 patients) and the non-3D printing (18 patients) groups, based on whether a 3D model of ribs was prepared prior to surgery. Analysis was conducted comparing the average fixation time per fracture, postoperative fixation loss, and poor reduction of fractured end between the two groups.
RESULTS: The average fixation time of each fracture was 27.2 ± 7.7 min in the 3D printing group and 29.3 ± 8.2 min in the non-3D printing group, with no statistically significant difference observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of poor fracture fixation in the 3D printing group was statistically lower than that in the non-3D printing group (12.9% vs. 44.7%, P < 0.05). Further stratified analysis revealed that the off-plate rate in the 3D printing group and the non-3D group was (3.2% vs. 12.8%, P > 0.05), and the dislocation rate of the fractured end was (9.7% vs. 31.9%, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The application of 3D printing technology to prepare the rib model before surgery is proves beneficial in reducing the occurrence of poor fixation of fractures and achieving precise and individualized treatment.
METHODS: The enrolled patients were divided into the 3D printing (11 patients) and the non-3D printing (18 patients) groups, based on whether a 3D model of ribs was prepared prior to surgery. Analysis was conducted comparing the average fixation time per fracture, postoperative fixation loss, and poor reduction of fractured end between the two groups.
RESULTS: The average fixation time of each fracture was 27.2 ± 7.7 min in the 3D printing group and 29.3 ± 8.2 min in the non-3D printing group, with no statistically significant difference observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of poor fracture fixation in the 3D printing group was statistically lower than that in the non-3D printing group (12.9% vs. 44.7%, P < 0.05). Further stratified analysis revealed that the off-plate rate in the 3D printing group and the non-3D group was (3.2% vs. 12.8%, P > 0.05), and the dislocation rate of the fractured end was (9.7% vs. 31.9%, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The application of 3D printing technology to prepare the rib model before surgery is proves beneficial in reducing the occurrence of poor fixation of fractures and achieving precise and individualized treatment.