The computational modelling and 3D technology are finding more and more applications in the medical field. Orthopedic surgery is one of the specialties that can benefit the most from this solution. Three case reports drawn from the experience of the authors’ Orthopedic Clinic are illustraded to highlight the benefits of applying this technology.

Drawing on the extensive experience gained within the authors’ Operating Unit, three cases regarding different body segments have been selected to prove the importance of 3D technology in preoperative planning and during the surgery. A sternal transplant by allograft from a cryopreserved cadaver, the realization of a custom made implant of the glenoid component in a two-stage revision of a reverse shoulder arthroplasty, and a case of revision on a hip prosthesis with acetabular bone loss (Paprosky 3B) treated with custom system. In all cases the surgery was planned using 3D processing software and models of the affected bone segments, printed by 3D printer, and based on CT scans of the patients. The surgical implant was managed with dedicated instruments.

The use of 3D technology can improve the results of orthopedic surgery in many ways: by optimizing the outcomes of the operation as it allows a preliminary study of the bone loss and an evalutation of feasibility of the surgery, it improves the precision of the positioning of the implant, especially in the context of severe deformity and bone loss, and it reduces the operating time; by improving surgeon training; by increasing patient involvement in decision making and informed consent.

3D technology, by offering targeted and customized solutions, is a valid tool to obtain the tailored care that every patient needs and deserves, also providing the surgeon with an important help in cases of great complexity.

Introduction and Objective

Some periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) present history and radiographic aspect consistent with an atypical femoral fracture (AFF), fulfilling the criteria for AFF except that PFFs by themselves are excluded from the diagnosis of AFFs. The aim of this study was to evaluate in a single Institution series of PFFs if any of them could be considered a periprosthetic atypical femoral fracture (PAFF), and their prevalence.