文献精选

Kavit Amin1,2,3,4, Roxana Moscalu1, Angela Imere1,5, Ralph Murphy1,2, Simon Barr1,2, Youri Tan1,2, Richard Wong1,2, Parviz Sorooshian1, Fei Zhang1,5, John Stone3,4, James Fildes3,4, Adam Reid1,2 & Jason Wong*,1,2

1 Blond McIndoe Laboratories, Division of Cell Matrix Biology & Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK

2 Department of Plastic Surgery & Burns, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK

3Manchester Collaborative Centre for Inflammation Research (MCCIR), Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK

4The Transplant Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK

5Department of Materials, School of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Science & Engineering Research Institutes, The University of Manchester, MSS Tower, Manchester, UK *Author for correspondence: 该Email地址已收到反垃圾邮件插件保护。要显示它您需要在浏览器中启用JavaScript。

Plastic surgery encompasses a broad spectrum of reconstructive challenges and prides itself upon developing and adopting new innovations. Practice has transitioned from microsurgery to supermicrosurgery with a possible future role in even smaller surgical frontiers. Exploiting materials on a nanoscale has enabled better visualization and enhancement of biological processes toward better wound healing, tumor identification and viability of tissues, all cornerstones of plastic surgery practice. Recent advances in nanomedicine and biomimicry herald further reconstructive progress facilitating soft and hard tissue, nerve and vascular engineering. These lay the foundation for improved biocompatibility and tissue integration by the optimization of engineered implants or tissues. This review will broadly examine each of these technologies, highlighting areas of progress that reconstructive surgeons may not be familiar with, which could see adoption into our armamentarium in the not-so-distant future.

First draft submitted: 17 March 2019; Accepted for publication: 16 August 2019; Published online: 31 October 2019

Keywords: biointegration • biomimicry • engineered implants • nanomedicine • nanoparticles • nanotechnology • plastic surgery • reconstructive surgery • tissue engineering • tissue regeneration

P. Andrés-Canoa,, J.A. Calvo-Haro b,c, F. Fillat-Gomà dI. Andrés-Cano e, R. Perez-Ma˜nanes b,c

a Departamento de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain

b Servicio de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Mara˜nón, Madrid, Spain

c Departamento de Cirugía, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

d Unidad de Planificación Quirúrgica 3D, Departamento de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Institut d’Investigació i Innovació Parc Taulí I3PT, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain

e Departamento de Radiodiagnóstico Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain

Abstract

      3D printing (I3D) is an additive manufacturing technology with a growing interest in medicine and especially in the specialty of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology. There are numerous applications that add value to the personalised treatment of patients: advanced preoperative planning, surgeries with specific tools for each patient, customised orthotic treatments, personalised implants or prostheses and innovative development in the field of bone and cartilage tissue engineering.

      This paper provides an update on the role that the orthopaedic surgeon and traumatologist plays as a user and prescriber of this technology and a review of the stages required for the correct integration of I3D into the hospital care flow, from the necessary resources to the current legal recommendations.

KEYWORDS

Additive manufacturing; Patient-specific  surgical guide; Custom implants; Bioprinting; Medical 3d printing

PALABRAS CLAVE

Fabricación de aditivos; Guía quirúrgica específica para el paciente; Implantes personalizados; Bioimpresión; Impresión médica en 3D

Resumen

      La impresión 3D (I3D) es una tecnología de fabricación aditiva con un creciente interés en medicina y sobre todo en la especialidad de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología. Hay numerosas aplicaciones que aportan un valor a ˜ nadido al tratamiento personalizado de los pacientes: planificación preoperatoria avanzada, cirugías con herramientas específicas para cada paciente, tratamientos ortésicos a medida, implantes o prótesis personalizadas y un desarrollo innovador en el campo de la ingeniería de tejidos óseos y cartilaginosos.

      En el presente trabajo se realiza una actualización sobre el papel que el cirujano ortopédico y traumatólogo desempe˜ na como usuario y como médico prescriptor de esta tecnología y un repaso a las etapas necesarias para una correcta integración de la I3D en el flujo asistencial hospitalario, desde los recursos necesarios hasta las recomendaciones legales actuales. © 2020 SECOT. Publicado por Elsevier Espa˜na, S.L.U. Este es un art´ıculo Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Hitesh Lal, Mohit Kumar Patralekh*

Central Institute of Orthopaedics, Safdarjung Hospital and VMMC, New Delhi, 110029, India

abstract

Background: With rapid emergence of 3D printing technology, surgeons have recently started to apply this for nearly all areas of orthopaedic trauma surgery. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance images of trauma patients can be utilized for making graspable objects from 3D reconstructed images. Patient specifific anatomical models can thereby be created. They enhance surgeon's knowledge of their patients' precise patho-anatomy, regarding both traumatized bones and soft tissue as well as normal areas, and therefore help in accurate preoperative planning. 3D printed patient specifific instrumentation can help to achieve precise implant placement, and better surgical results. Most importantly, customized implants, casts, orthoses and prosthetics can be manufactured to match an individual's anatomy. Three dimensional (3D) printing, also called as ‘additive manufacturing’ and ‘rapid prototyping’ is considered as the “second industrial revolution”, and this appears to be especially true for orthopaedic trauma surgery.

Methods: A literature search was performed for extracting all papers related to 3D Printing applications in orthopaedics and allied sciences on the Pubmed, and SCOPUS; using suitable key terms and Boolean operators (“3D Printing” OR “3 dimensional printing” OR “3D printed” OR “additive manufacturing” OR “rapid prototyping”) AND (‘‘Orthopaedics” OR “Orthopaedics’’) AND (“Trauma” OR “Injury”)in June 2018. Search was also performed in Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. No limits were set on the time period or evidence level, as 3D printing in orthopaedics is relatively recent and mainly low level evidence is available. Titles and abstracts were screened and all duplicate and unrelated papers were excluded. Papers related to orthopaedic trauma were manually selected for this review.

Results: The search on Pubmed retrieved 144 Papers and similar search on SCOPUS retrieved 94 papers. Additional searches did not reveal more relevant papers. After excluding duplicates and unrelated papers, and on screening of titles and abstracts, 59 papers were considered for review. Papers related to spine fractures only were not included, as they have been covered in another paper in this journal issue.

Conclusion: All over the world, orthopaedic Surgeon's and allied professionals and scientists are enthusiastically using 3D printing technology for designing patient specifific models, instrumentation, implants, orthosis and prosthesis, besides 3D bioprinting of bone and cartilage scaffolding, and the same has been applied for nearly all areas of orthopaedic trauma surgery, from head to foot.

article info

Article history: Received 19 July 2018 Accepted 31 July 2018 Available online 3 August 2018

Keywords: 3D Printing  Rapid prototyping  Additive manufacturing  Orthopaedics Trauma

[摘要] 目的 观察自体细胞再生技术治疗深度烧伤削痂后植皮的效果。方法 2014年3月-2018年3月,分析我科住院的深度烧伤患者54例,其中27例患者术中应用自体细胞再生技术结合游离皮片移植,27例患者常规使用游离皮片移植修复创面。于术后对比两组创面的愈合时间和愈合效果。结果 应用自体细胞再生技术结合植皮后,与对照组相比,实验组供皮区愈合时间更短愈合后远期效果更佳,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。而且,在术后首次换药时疼痛程度,术后植皮并发症方面,两组之间差异无统计学意义。结论 自体细胞再生技术可有效促进烧伤创面愈合,缩短愈合时间,并且安全性高。

[关键词] 自体细胞再生技术;烧伤;临床观察