header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Research

CUSTOM ANATOMICAL 3D-PRINTED PATIENT-SPECIFIC ACL FEMORAL TUNNEL GUIDE FROM MRI: A PROOF OF CONCEPT STUDY

European Orthopaedic Research Society (EORS) 2015, Annual Conference, 2–4 September 2015. Part 2.



Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study is to outline the steps and techniques required to create a patient specific 3D printed guide for the accurate placement of the origin of the femoral tunnel for single bundle ACL reconstruction.

Introduction

Placements of the femoral tunnels for ACL reconstruction have changed over the years. Most recently there has been a trend towards placing the tunnels in a more anatomic position. There has been subsequent debate as to where this anatomic position should be. The problem with any attempt at consensus over the placement of an anatomic landmark is that each patient has some variation in their positioning and therefore a fixed point for all has compromise for all as it is an average. Our aim was to attempt to make a cost effective and quick custom guide that could allow placement of the center of the patients’ newly created femoral tunnel in the mid position of their contralateral native ACL femoral footprint.

Materials & Methods

We took a standard protocol MRI scan of a patient's knee without ACL injury transferred the DICOM files to a personal computer running OsiriX (Pixmeo, Geneva, Switzerland.) and analysed it for a series of specific anatomical landmarks. OsiriX is an image processing software dedicated to DICOM images. We marked the most posterior edge of the articular cartilage on the lateral wall of the notch (1), the most anterior edge of the articular cartilage of the lateral wall of the notch (2), the most inferior edge of the articular cartilage of the lateral wall of the notch (3) and the center of the femoral footprint of the native ACL. Distances were then calculated to determine the position relative to the three articular cartilage points of the center of the ACL footprint. These measurements and points were then utilised to create a 3D computer aided design (CAD) model of a custom guide. This was done using the 3D CAD program 123Design (Autodesk Ltd., Farnbourgh, Hampshire). This 3D model was then exported as an STL file suitable for 3D printing. The STL file was then uploaded to an online 3D printing service and the physical guide was created in transparent acrylic based photopolymer, PA220 plastic and 316L stainless steel. The models created were then measured using vernier calipers to confirm the accuracy of the final guides.

Results

The MRI data showed point 1 (AP), point 2 (distal-ACL), point 3 (Ant-ACL) and point 4 (Post-ACL) at a distance of 59.83, 15, 45.8 and 13.9 respectively. For the 3D CAD model, points 1, 2, 3 and 4 were at a distance of 59.83, 15, 45.8 and 13.9 respectively. For the PA220 plastic model, points 1, 2, 3 and 4 were at a distance of 59.86, 14.48, 45.85 and 13.79 respectively. For the 316L stainless steel model, points 1, 2, 3 and 4 were at a distance of 59.79, 14.67, 45.64 and 13.48 respectively. Lastly, for the photopolymer model, points 1, 2, 3 and 4 were at a distance of 59.86, 14.2, 45.4 and 13.69 respectively. The p-value comparing MRI/CAD vs. PA220 was p=0.3753; for the comparison between MRI/CAD vs. 316L, p=0.0683; lastly for the comparison between MRI/CAD Vs. Photopolymer, p=0.3450. The models produced were accurate with no statistical difference in size and positioning of the center of the ACL footprint from the original computer model and to the position of the ACL from the MRI scans. The costs for the models 3D printed were £3.50 for the PA220 plastic, £15 for the transparent photopolymer and £25 for the 316L stainless steel. The time taken from MRI to delivery for the physical models was 7 days.

Discussion

Articles regarding the creation of 3D printed custom ACL guides from the patients contralateral knee do not feature in current literature. There has been much research on custom guides for other orthopaedic procedures such as in total knee arthroplasty for the accurate placement of implants. There has also been research published on the creation of custom cutting jigs from CT for complex corrective osteotomy surgery. This study serves as the first step and a proof of concept for the accurate creation of patient specific 3D printed guides for the anatomical placement of the femoral tunnel for ACL reconstruction. The guides were easy to create and produce taking only a week and with a cost of between £3.50 and £25. The design of the guides was to allow the tip of a standard Chondro Pick (Arthrex inc., Naples, Florida.) (3mm) used to mark the starting point of the femoral tunnel to enter through the guide. The next step for this research is to create guides from cadaveric matched knees and utilise the guides to carry out the creation of the femoral tunnels and to analyse of the placement of the tunnel in relation to the contralateral knee.