Additive Manufacturing in Orthopaedic Trauma: Current Evidence and Applications

TL;DR

This review explores how 3D printing is used in orthopaedic trauma, highlighting its benefits and current limitations in clinical applications.

Contribution

The paper provides a structured analysis of 3D printing applications in orthopaedic trauma and identifies key research gaps.

Findings

3D-printed anatomical models reduce operative time and radiation exposure during surgery.

Patient-specific surgical guides improve intraoperative accuracy but face challenges in preparation and anatomical stability.

Customized 3D-printed implants and external fixators show promise but require more extensive validation.

Abstract

Additive manufacturing also known as three-dimensional printing (3D printing), provided the ability to produce precise three-dimensional structures, representing a rapidly growing field in Orthopaedics. Its clinical value has been attributed to the ability to create complex three dimensional objects with relative ease and at low cost. However, the available evidence regarding its applications in trauma was heterogeneous. This narrative review aimed to analyze the clinical applications of 3D printing in traumatology. Additionally, the research gaps that emerged in our literature search were underscored. Four application domains were selected based on their prevalence in the screened literature and relative level of clinical implementation within orthopaedic traumatology, including (1) 3D-printed anatomical models, (2) patient-specific surgical guides (PSSGs), (3) 3D-printed implants, and (4) temporary 3D-printed external fixation devices. 3D-printed anatomical models were found to help in reducing operative time, estimated blood loss, and the intraoperative radiation exposure. The use of PSSGs was shown to improve intraoperative accuracy and to provide a basis for consistent, accurate, and reproducible outcomes. However, their implementation was hindered by preparation time, the need for stable anatomical landmarks, and reduced accuracy due to potential soft-tissue injury and swelling. In contrast, 3D-printed implants and external fixation devices constituted promising but less extensively studied applications of 3D printing in trauma. The production of customized implants and external fixators, as suggested by the studies available, was deemed feasible, with comparable mechanical properties and significantly lower cost. Larger multicenter studies are required to support and validate these findings. Overall, based on the available evidence, 3D-printed anatomical models and patient-specific surgical guides demonstrate the highest level of clinical applicability, primarily in preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance.

Figures