1. Introduction
Custom-made implants, anatomical models, molds used to create prothesis or surgical guides have been widely employed since the discovery of 3D printing and its advantages. Thanks to its various applicational fields, three-dimensional printing is gaining an essential role in the medical community [ 1 , 2 ].
In spinal surgery, 3D prothesis represents a useful instrument for spinal reconstruction after the removal of spinal tumors that require an “en bloc” resection (i.e., benign aggressive bone tumors, malignant primary bone tumors, and highly selected cases of spinal metastases). This represents a complex and demanding procedure, aiming to restore spinal length, alignment and weight-bearing capacity and to provide immediate stability [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ].
In the last few years, the use of 3D printing custom-made implants is becoming more considerable in spinal oncology, due to various paramount advantages: 3D printing provides customized implants according to the patient’s specific anatomy and needs (i.e., shape, width, and length of the endplates) and proportioned to the expected extent of resection, ensuring spinal homeostasis and higher success rates thanks to proper osseointegration [ 8 , 9 ].
Thus, in this systematic review, the authors searched the literature to investigate and discuss the advantages and limitations of using 3D-printed custom-made vertebral bodies in the treatment of spinal tumors.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, with no limits in terms of date of publication. The following medical subject headings (MeSH) and free text terms were combined: “3D custom made”, “3D prothesis”, “3D printed implant”, “3D printing”, “additive manufacturing” AND “spinal tumor”, “tumor spine surgery”, “vertebrectomy”, “corpectomy”, “spondylectomy”, “bioengineering”, “titanium”, and “3D printed custom made vertebra”. The collected studies were exported to Mendeley. Duplicates were removed. Details of the search strategy are shown in Figure 1 .
2.2. Eligibility Criteria
Studies regarding 3D custom-made prothesis after total or partial vertebral resection, studies regarding patients with histologically confirmed diagnosis of primary spinal tumor or solitary bone metastasis; and studies evaluating the implant of 3D custom-made prothesis in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine were included. Studies were excluded if they were: full articles in languages other than English, studies reporting the use of 3D custom-made prothesis only for modeling, studies regarding patients with non-oncological spinal diseases, or studies with implantation of 3D custom-made prothesis in the sacrum. Patients’ demographics are shown in Table 1 .
2.3. Data Extraction
The available data included authors, year, study design, vertebral localization, histological diagnosis of tumor, presenting symptoms, surgical treatment, type of prothesis implanted, blood loss during surgery, and post-operative course.
3. Results
A total of 578 published studies were identified through PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus databases and additional reference list searches. After performing a first screening by title and abstract reading, 387 papers were excluded because of overlapping results. After a detailed examination of these studies, 142 more papers were excluded (see details in Eligibility Criteria ).
Hence, 19 published studies were included in this literature review, and include a total of 87 patients, 49 males (56.3%) and 38 females (43.7%). The reported median age was 43.14 ± 15.99 years (range 12–72). Tumors were located at the cervical (28%), cervico-thoracic (1%), thoracic (44%), thoraco-lumbar (5%), lumbar (19%), and lumbo-sacral (1%) spine, and were not applicable for 2% of them. The primary tumor diagnoses were giant cell tumor in 15(17.2%), metastasis 13 (14.9%), chordoma 12 (13.8%), chondrosarcoma 10 (11.5%), osteosarcoma 6 (6.9%), Ewing sarcoma 4 (4.6%), fibrous tumor 3 (3.4%), hemangioma 3 (3.4%), osteoblastoma 3 (3.4%), malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors 3 (3.4%), undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) 2 (2.3%), myeloma 1 (1.1%), meningioma 1 (1.1%), paraganglioma 1 (1.1%), plasmacytoma 1 (1.1%), rhabdomyosarcoma 1 (1.1%), liposarcoma 1 (1.1%), pseudo-myogenic-hemangio-endothelioma 1 (1.1%); the remaining part consists of two oncological patients not included in the study (2.3%) and four non-oncological patients not included in the study (4.6%).
Complications related to the use of 3D-printed custom-made protheses were not evaluated because they were not fully mentioned in all the articles included in this review. The distribution of tumor localization and the histopathological diagnosis are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 .
4. Discussion
Three-dimensional printing (3DP), also called additive manufacturing, is an emergent technology that is rapidly evolving in medical sectors [ 27 ]. It is gaining success in many fields, such as the education of medical students and health-care professionals, preoperative surgical planning, intraoperative applications (patient-specific guides and implants) and, finally, spinal surgery [ 28 ].
The peculiarity of 3D-printed technology is its ease of use; CT and MRI can be used by engineers to replace the bony defect through computer-based modelling, using bio-mechanical characteristics that increase the bone match, reducing complication rates [ 29 ].
4.1. 3D Prothesis Production
The production of 3D models is based on several steps that must be closely followed ( Figure 4 ).
Data acquisition: choosing imaging data is one of the most critical steps: a low-resolution image may create a model that does not resemble the real anatomy. The data acquired (DICOM) are processed by 3D software and then segmented and saved as a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file (the most used format) according to a layer-by-layer building technique.
Segmentation: it is an optional step, but in medical fields it is always employed. It is used to select the region of interest and create the surface mesh of the target area (different software can be used to manipulate DICOM data).
After the segmentation processes, the voxels extracted are converted into a polygonal model. This process can create artifacts and careful revision and comparison between the region of interest from the processed data and DICOM data are mandatory to guarantee an accurate anatomical prototype.
Finally, the STL file can be recognized by the 3D printer software and produced.
Post-processing: used to remove excess materials or to smooth prothesis surfaces. Different 3DP materials and techniques can be employed. In spinal surgery, the most used are Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), where several materials as metal alloys or ceramics can be used, and Stereolithography (SLA) [ 30 , 31 ].
4.2. Anatomical Modeling
The ability to create 3D anatomical models, in a 1:1 scale, represents a revolution in the surgical field. As a matter of fact, when approaching complex spinal oncological pathologies, in-depth and detailed knowledge of both the anatomy related to the pathology and the exact location of the tumor and its relationships with the surrounding structures is mandatory when the neurosurgeon plans the most suitable surgical treatment, avoiding unexpected problems and reducing the risk of pitfalls [ 13 ]. In recent years, thanks to the lower production costs and the spread of 3D printers within a hospital setting, the application of additive manufacturing in preoperative planning has spread enormously. This potential application of 3D printing was also demonstrated in a study by Leary OP et al., where the practical utility of this device in the preoperative planning of a series of nine patients undergoing spinal surgery was evaluated, underlining the usefulness of 3D printing as an adjunct for treating a variety of complex spinal lesions and emphasizing the particular utility of 3D modeling for planning and performing tumor resecting surgeries, preserving healthy structures as much as possible [ 32 ].
4.3. Medical and Surgical Education
Traditionally, surgeons have learned anatomy from cadaveric specimens, except for those countries where stringent legislation or ethical and religious concerns have forbidden it. In this scenario, the chance to create anatomical models through 3D printing has revolutionized the way students and professionals learn surgical anatomy and surgical procedures [ 33 ]. Moreover, 3D printing can be used to print pathologic conditions, such as a vertebral fracture, guarantying a great advantage in terms of learning complex pathologies, as also demonstrated by the study of Li et al [ 34 ]. Park et al., indeed, assessed the instructive impact of using a 3D-printed spine model for training residents in pedicle screw freehand instrumentation strategy, emphasizing the advantages and disadvantages of these innovative tools [ 28 , 35 ].
4.4. Customization of Surgical Tools
Another interesting field of application of 3D printing is related to the possibility of creating customized surgical instruments, laying the foundations for increasingly personalized surgery based on the individual characteristics of each patient. So, 3D-printing could improve the accuracy and safety of surgical procedures. In this case, 3D prints were exploited to create tools aimed at protecting the dural sac, the spinal cord, or vital vascular structures during the surgical procedure for tumor removal or during osteotomy. For example, a drill guide template with a screw trajectory into the replaced vertebral body has been designed to enhance accuracy, reducing screw deviation and injuries to vital structures, the efficiency, reducing intraoperative time, and the safety, reducing intraoperative radiations [ 18 , 36 ]. In addition, customized instruments have also been created to optimize the positioning of needles for cryotherapy, safeguarding adjacent structures from any thermal damage, to create custom-made screws with customized dimensions and angles and to produce vertebral locking systems based on the specific characteristics of each patient [ 13 ].
4.5. Surgical Implants and 3D-Prosthesis
Thanks to the creation of custom-made prostheses and customized implants, 3D printing has certainly played a key role. This paved the way for patient-specific medicine and surgery, in particular spinal surgery. The use of 3D patient-specific implants in anatomically challenging cases, such as a tumor that has caused significant structural deformity, appears to be indispensable for improving prognosis [ 27 ]. As a matter of fact, in oncological spine surgery the main objective is to perform a total resection of the lesion, trying to preserve structural integrity and spinal stability [ 36 ]. Indeed, in primary bone tumors, in order to obtain a free tumor margin of resection and as long as it guarantees a long-term survival, an en-bloc resection with wider margin of excision is mandatory [ 4 , 31 ].
To do this, the prosthetic reconstruction phase has an essential role [ 37 ]. Recent studies have shown how an appropriate biomechanical reconstruction can cause fewer complications and reduce the risk of re-intervention [ 18 , 36 , 38 ]. Indeed, 3D-printed custom-made protheses provide anatomical stability and consequently an improved success rate thanks to the vertebral prothesis designed based on the patient’s characteristics and anatomy.
Moreover, common complications related to prosthetic systems are those related to the process of osseointegration, implant dislocation or hardware failure; with the spread of custom-made 3D printing and with the progressive and constant development of bio-tissue engineering, it is possible to solve, at least in part, these issues [ 39 ]. In fact, thanks to the personalized mapping of the vertebral endplates, it is possible, for example, to exploit a wider contact area between the prosthesis and the vertebral interfaces, increasing the stability of the implant and reducing the risk of dislocation or failure [ 13 , 40 ]. Lastly, 3DP technology can produce titanium surfaces with porous scaffolds that allow host bone to grow inside the construct to facilitate integration and promoting the activation of osteogenic cells. Compared to plasma-sprayed porous titanium-coated PEEK and PEEK prothesis that can lead to endplate fracture or implant collapse due to a sharp edge, 3DP decreased the risk of subsistence and damages resulting from radiotherapy [ 15 , 29 ].
This process of osseointegration has been also verified in Wei et al. during the patients’ follow-up, showing, on CT scans, new bone tissue growing around the 3D vertebral prothesis [ 16 ].
Furthermore, Girolami et al. evaluated the grade of osseointegration in 3D vertebral body replacement through a histological analysis, showing the presence of bone regeneration and growth in the 3D-printed prothesis, assessing the lower risk of failure, subsidence or migration using these devices. Tong et al [ 31 ]. have also enlightened and confirmed that complex spinal cases, such as in patients undergoing vertebral tumor surgeries, could have greater benefits from a 3D-printed prothesis implantation that can ensure proper spine stability, thanks to all the above-mentioned advantages [ 3 , 17 ].
As shown in Table 1 , the most common site involved was the thoracic tract and the most common tumors were giant cell tumors, metastases and chordomas. Patients’ quality of life (QoL) was severely limited by oncological pain, and an en bloc resection using a 3D custom made prothesis can restore stability, ensuring pain relief and a better QoL. Post-operative complications, whenever reported, are more related to tumor recurrence than 3D vertebral implants, showing a lower rate of subsidence that confirms the usefulness of these protheses [ 27 , 28 ]. Tang et al. showed that subsidence inferior to 2 mm did not affect osseointegration and patient’s outcome [ 10 ].
Indeed, Girolami et al. underlined how the rate of subsidence was not significant, as long as it did not involve posterior fixation or pain relief [ 3 ].
Zhuang et al. found that the association of surgical removal of spinal tumors using 3D prothesis vertebra followed by robotic radiosurgery could influence the outcome; indeed, their series has shown no recurrence after radiosurgery. Therefore, this could represent a good compromise to prevent recurrence and, at the same time, guarantee spinal stability [ 4 , 16 , 19 , 20 ].
The great opportunity of a custom-made prothesis based on the patient’s peculiar anatomy has simplified reconstructive surgery, especially in those cases where complex anatomy is involved; care and precision must be taken in those districts, such as in the cervical spine, where neurovascular and sensitive anatomic elements such as the larynx, esophagus, vertebral arteries are found. In these districts, 3D printing could show its usefulness both in pre-operative planning and intraoperatively using the custom-made prothesis [ 41 ].
4.6. Complications
The use of 3D implanted protheses is a promising field that can still display potential pitfalls. Complications in the series revised are commonly related to the surgical procedure, such as CSF leak due to a dural tear, wound infections, transient postoperative neurofunctional deterioration and/or transient minor post-operative dysphagia and dysphonia that fully recovered during the post-operative course [ 10 , 15 , 16 ].
Nevertheless, it has been reported that the strength of these devices cannot be guaranteed as in conventional implants and that unplanned changes during a surgical procedure can create a mismatch between the prothesis and defect, limiting the capabilities of this device [ 17 , 42 ]. Therefore, the occurrence of subsidence is quite rare but a comparison to conventional techniques is still missing, along with a long-term follow-up.
4.7. Limitations
Despite the excellent outcome reported, the use of 3D custom-made protheses is limited by all the unplanned “after printing” complications that can occur and make the prothesis incompatible. To avoid this issue, three-1 mm-different protheses are printed, making costs high and difficult to afford [ 18 ].
Indeed, the pre-operative planning, the lack of readily available 3D printers and specialized materials in hospital, and the three different protheses printed are an example of all the limitations that can occur and delay surgical procedures [ 18 ].
Another issue enlightened by Chatain et al. is that the FDA approval could take a long time, resulting in a delay to prothesis production: this may represent a critical point, since it affects patients’ quality of life, which has already been influenced by their tumor history. In patients affected by spinal tumor there are no guideline about the choice of which prothesis should be implanted, so each case must be approved by FDA committee [ 36 ].
Furthermore, not only approval, but also long manufacturing times have delayed the implementation of this technology in hospitals.
5. Conclusions
Three-dimensional custom-made prothesis represents a feasible tool after vertebral tumor en-bloc resection in spinal reconstruction. This procedure is still evolving, and long-term follow-ups are mandatory to assess its safeness and usefulness. Nevertheless, the premises are encouraging, and a wider use of this technology should be considered as a good chance to guarantee an optimal osseointegration with a lower risk of prothesis-related complications.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.C. and M.P.; methodology, L.B. (Lapo Bonosi) and S.M.; validation, R.C., L.B. (Lapo Bonosi) and R.M.; formal analysis, L.B. (Lara Brunasso); investigation, U.E.B.; resources, G.F.; data curation, M.P., F.P.; writing—original draft preparation, R.C.; writing—review and editing, R.C.; visualization, R.M.G.; supervision, G.E.U., G.R.G., D.G.I., R.D.B., C.L.S., P.P.; project administration, D.G.I., R.M. and R.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research did not receive any funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Tack P. Victor J. Gemmel P. Annemans L. 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: A systematic literature review Biomed. Eng. Online 2016 15 115 10.1186/s12938-016-0236-4 27769304 PMC5073919
2. Francaviglia N. Maugeri R. Odierna Contino A. Meli F. Fiorenza V. Costantino G. Giammalva R.G. Iacopino D.G. Skull bone defects reconstruction with custom-made titanium graft shaped with electron beam melting technology: Preliminary experience in a series of ten patients Trends Reconstr. Neurosurg. 2017 124 137 141 10.1007/978-3-319-39546-3_21 28120065
3. Girolami M. Sartori M. Monopoli-Forleo D. Ghermandi R. Tedesco G. Evangelisti G. Pipola V. Pesce E. Falzetti L. Fini M. Histological examination of a retrieved custom-made 3D-printed titanium vertebra: Do the fine details obtained by additive manufacturing really promote osteointegration? Eur. Spine J. 2021 30 2775 2781 10.1007/s00586-021-06926-w 34279722
4. Girolami M. Boriani S. Bandiera S. Barbanti-Bródano G. Ghermandi R. Terzi S. Tedesco G. Evangelisti G. Pipola V. Gasbarrini A. Biomimetic 3D-printed custom-made prosthesis for anterior column reconstruction in the thoracolumbar spine: A tailored option following en bloc resection for spinal tumors: Preliminary results on a case-series of 13 patients Eur. Spine J. 2018 27 3073 3083 10.1007/s00586-018-5708-8 30039254
5. Maugeri R. Giugno A. Giammalva R.G. Gulì C. Basile L. Graziano F. Iacopino D.G.G. A thoracic vertebral localization of a metastasized cutaneous Merkel cell carcinoma: Case report and review of literature Surg. Neurol. Int. 2017 8 190 10.4103/sni.sni_70_17 28868202 PMC5569392
6. Maugeri R. Giammalva G.R. Cicero G. De Luca R. Gulì C. Graziano F. Basile L. Giugno A. Iacopino D.G.G. Unusual case of dorsal vertebral metastases from a male breast cancer Acta Med. Mediterr. 2017 2017 1157 10.19193/0393-6384_2017_6_181
7. Maugeri R. Graziano F. Basile L. Gulì C. Giugno A. Giammalva G.R. Visocchi M. Iacopino D.G. Reconstruction of vertebral body after radiofrequency ablation and augmentation in dorsolumbar metastatic vertebral fracture: Analysis of clinical and radiological outcome in a clinical series of 18 patients Trends Reconstr. Neurosurg. 2017 124 81 86 10.1007/978-3-319-39546-3_13 28120057
8. Phan K. Sgro A. Maharaj M.M. D’Urso P. Mobbs R.J. Application of a 3D custom printed patient specific spinal implant for C1/2 arthrodesis J. Spine Surg. 2016 2 314 10.21037/jss.2016.12.06 28097249 PMC5233864
9. Amelot A. Colman M. Loret J.E. Vertebral body replacement using patient-specific three–dimensional-printed polymer implants in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: An encouraging preliminary report Spine J. 2018 18 892 899 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.01.019 29408349
10. Tang X. Yang Y. Zang J. Du Z. Yan T. Yang R. Guo W. Preliminary Results of a 3D-Printed Modular Vertebral Prosthesis for Anterior Column Reconstruction after Multilevel Thoracolumbar Total En Bloc Spondylectomy Orthop. Surg. 2021 13 949 957 10.1111/os.12975 33817999 PMC8126945
11. Tang X. Cai Z. Wang R. Ji T. Guo W. En bloc resection and reconstruction of a huge chondrosarcoma involving multilevel upper thoracic spine and chest wall: Case report BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2021 22 348 10.1186/s12891-021-04208-6 33845805 PMC8042902
12. Wang Y. Zhang X. Zhang Y. Zhang H. Sun H. Hao D. Wang B. One-stage posterior en-bloc spondylectomy following reconstruction with individualized 3D printed artificial vertebrae for multi-segment thoracolumbar metastases: Case report and literature review Am. J. Transl. Res. 2021 13 115 33527012 PMC7847514
13. Lador R. Regev G. Salame K. Khashan M. Lidar Z. Use of 3-Dimensional Printing Technology in Complex Spine Surgeries World Neurosurg. 2020 133 e327-41 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.09.002 31520760
14. Parr W.C.H. Burnard J.L. Singh T. McEvoy A. Walsh W.R. Mobbs R.J. C3-C5 Chordoma Resection and Reconstruction with a Three-Dimensional Printed Titanium Patient-Specific Implant World Neurosurg. 2020 136 226 233 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.11.167 31811966
15. Hunn S.A.M. Koefman A.J. Hunn A.W.M. 3D-printed Titanium Prosthetic Reconstruction of the C2 Vertebra: Techniques and Outcomes of Three Consecutive Cases Spine 2020 45 667 672 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003360 31809469
16. Wei F. Li Z. Liu Z. Liu X. Jiang L. Yu M. Xu N. Wu F. Dang L. Zhou H. Upper cervical spine reconstruction using customized 3D-printed vertebral body in 9 patients with primary tumors involving C2 Ann. Transl. Med. 2020 8 332 10.21037/atm.2020.03.32 32355776 PMC7186708
17. Yang X. Wan W. Gong H. Xiao J. Application of individualized 3D-printed artificial vertebral body for cervicothoracic reconstruction in a six-level recurrent chordoma Turk. Neurosurg. 2020 30 149 155 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.25296-18.2 31049920
18. Li Y. Zheng G. Liu T. Liang Y. Huang J. Liu X. Huang J. Cheng Z. Lu S. Huang L. Surgical Resection of Solitary Bone Plasmacytoma of Atlas and Reconstruction with 3-Dimensional−Printed Titanium Patient-Specific Implant World Neurosurg. 2020 139 322 329 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.041 32311548
19. Zhuang H. Wei F. Jiang L. Wang Y. Liu Z. Assessment of Spinal Tumor Treatment Using Implanted 3D-Printed Vertebral Bodies with Robotic Stereotactic Radiotherapy Innovation 2020 1 100040 10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100040 PMC8454659 34557713
20. Peng L. Wang P. Jiang W. Cheng C. Zuo W. Qu Y. Li W. Reconstruction with a 3D-printed prosthesis and internal fixation with novel four-rod technique after en bloc resection of meningiomas in the lumbosacral region (L5-S3) without rectum/bladder function sacrifice: Technical case report Turk. Neurosurg. 2020 30 632 636 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.28031-19.2 32672344
21. He S. Yang X. Yang J. Ye C. Liu W. Wei H. Xiao J. Customized “whole-cervical-vertebral-body” reconstruction after modified subtotal spondylectomy of C2-C7 spinal tumor via piezoelectric surgery Oper. Neurosurg. 2019 17 580 587 10.1093/ons/opz077 31089696
22. Chin B.Z. Ji T. Tang X. Yang R. Guo W. Three-Level Lumbar En Bloc Spondylectomy with Three-Dimensional−Printed Vertebrae Reconstruction for Recurrent Giant Cell Tumor World Neurosurg. 2019 129 531 537 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.06.056 31207371
23. Choy W.J. Mobbs R.J. Wilcox B. Phan S. Phan K. Sutterlin C.E. Reconstruction of Thoracic Spine Using a Personalized 3D-Printed Vertebral Body in Adolescent with T9 Primary Bone Tumor World Neurosurg. 2017 105 1032.e13 1032.e17 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.05.133 28578109
24. Li X. Wang Y. Zhao Y. Liu J. Xiao S. Mao K. Multilevel 3D Printing Implant for Reconstructing Cervical Spine with Metastatic Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Spine 2017 42 E1326 E1330 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002229 28498291
25. Mobbs R.J. Coughlan M. Thompson R. Sutterlin C.E. Phan K. The utility of 3D printing for surgical planning and patient-specific implant design for complex spinal pathologies: Case report J. Neurosurg. Spine 2017 26 513 518 10.3171/2016.9.SPINE16371 28106524
26. Xu N. Wei F. Liu X. Jiang L. Cai H. Li Z. Yu M. Wu F. Liu Z. Reconstruction of the upper cervical spine using a personalized 3D-printed vertebral body in an adolescent with ewing sarcoma Spine 2016 41 E50 E54 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001179 26335676
27. Burnard J.L. Parr W.C.H. Choy W.J. Walsh W.R. Mobbs R.J. 3D-printed spine surgery implants: A systematic review of the efficacy and clinical safety profile of patient-specific and off-the-shelf devices Eur. Spine J. 2020 29 1248 1260 10.1007/s00586-019-06236-2 31797140
28. Senkoylu A. Daldal I. Cetinkaya M. 3D printing and spine surgery J. Orthop. Surg. 2020 28 2309499020927081 10.1177/2309499020927081 32468929
29. Fang T. Zhang M. Yan J. Zhao J. Pan W. Wang X. Zhou Q. Comparative analysis of 3D-printed artificial vertebral body versus titanium mesh cage in repairing bone defects following single-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion Med. Sci. Monit. 2021 27 e928022-10 10.12659/MSM.928022 33550326 PMC7876950
30. Marro A. Bandukwala T. Mak W. Three-Dimensional Printing and Medical Imaging: A Review of the Methods and Applications Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol. 2016 45 2 9 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2015.07.009 26298798
31. Tong Y. Kaplan D.J. Spivak J.M. Bendo J.A. Three-dimensional printing in spine surgery: A review of current applications Spine J. 2020 20 833 846 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.11.004 31731009
32. Leary O.P. Crozier J. Liu D.D. Niu T. Pertsch N.J. Camara-Quintana J.Q. Svokos K.A. Syed S. Telfeian A.E. Oyelese A.A. Three-Dimensional Printed Anatomic Modeling for Surgical Planning and Real-Time Operative Guidance in Complex Primary Spinal Column Tumors: Single-Center Experience and Case Series World Neurosurg. 2021 145 e116 e126 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.09.145 33010507
33. Wu A.M. Lin J.L. Kwan K.Y.H. Wang X.Y. Zhao J. 3D-printing techniques in spine surgery: The future prospects and current challenges Expert Rev. Med. Devices 2018 15 399 401 10.1080/17434440.2018.1483234 29848086
34. Li Z. Li Z. Xu R. Li M. Li J. Liu Y. Sui D. Zhang W. Chen Z. Three-dimensional printing models improve understanding of spinal fracture-A randomized controlled study in China Sci. Rep. 2015 5 11570 10.1038/srep11570 26099838 PMC4477328
35. Park H.J. Wang C. Choi K.H. Kim H.N. Use of a life-size three-dimensional-printed spine model for pedicle screw instrumentation training J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2018 13 86 10.1186/s13018-018-0788-z 29661210 PMC5902859
36. Chatain G.P. Finn M. Compassionate use of a custom 3d-printed sacral implant for revision of failing sacrectomy: Case report J. Neurosurg. Spine 2020 33 513 518 10.3171/2020.3.SPINE191497 32442976
37. Thadani V.N. Riaz M.J. Singh G. The evolution of three-dimensional technology in musculoskeletal oncology J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2018 9 269 274 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.07.020 30202160 PMC6128801
38. Maugeri R. Giammalva R.G. Graziano F. Basile L. Gulì C. Giugno A. Iacopino D.G.G. Never say never again: A bone graft infection due to a hornet sting, thirty-nine years after cranioplasty Surg. Neurol. Int. 2017 8 189 10.4103/sni.sni_68_17 28868201 PMC5569393
39. Makhni M.C. Caldwell J.M.E. Saifi C. Fischer C.R. Lehman R.A. Lenke L.G. Lee F.Y. Tissue engineering advances in spine surgery Regen. Med. 2016 11 211 222 26877156 10.2217/rme.16.3
40. Mobbs R.J. Choy W.J. Wilson P. McEvoy A. Phan K. Parr W.C.H. L5 En-Bloc Vertebrectomy with Customized Reconstructive Implant: Comparison of Patient-Specific Versus Off-the-Shelf Implant World Neurosurg. 2018 112 94 100 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.078 29366999
41. Glennie R.A. Rampersaud Y.R. Boriani S. Reynolds J.J. Williams R. Gokaslan Z.L. Schmidt M.H. Varga P.P. Fisher C.G. A systematic review with consensus expert opinion of best reconstructive techniques after osseous en bloc spinal column tumor resection Spine 2016 41 S205 S211 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001835 27488296
42. Kim D. Lim J.-Y. Shim K.-W. Han J.W. Yi S. Yoon D.H. Kim K.N. Ha Y. Ji G.Y. Shin D.A. Sacral Reconstruction with a 3D-Printed Implant after Hemisacrectomy in a Patient with Sacral Osteosarcoma: 1-Year Follow-Up Result Yonsei Med. J. 2017 58 453 457 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.2.453 28120579 PMC5290028