Mesh Ti6Al4V Material Manufactured by Selective Laser Melting (SLM) as a Promising Intervertebral Fusion Cage

A novel artificial vertebral implant with Gyroid porous structures for reducing the subsidence and mechanical failure rate after vertebral body replacement

BACKGROUND

Prosthesis subsidence and mechanical failure were considered significant threats after vertebral body replacement during the long-term follow-up. Therefore, improving and optimizing the structure of vertebral substitutes for exceptional performance has become a pivotal challenge in spinal reconstruction.

METHODS

The study aimed to develop a novel artificial vertebral implant (AVI) with triply periodic minimal surface Gyroid porous structures to enhance the safety and stability of prostheses. The biomechanical performance of AVIs under different loading conditions was analyzed using the finite element method. These implants were fabricated using selective laser melting technology and evaluated through static compression and subsidence experiments.

RESULTS

The results demonstrated that the peak stress in the Gyroid porous AVI was consistently lower than that in the traditional porous AVI under all loading conditions, with a maximum reduction of 73.4%. Additionally, it effectively reduced peak stress at the bone-implant interface of the vertebrae. Static compression experiments demonstrated that the Gyroid porous AVI was about 1.63 times to traditional porous AVI in terms of the maximum compression load, indicating that Gyroid porous AVI could meet the safety requirement. Furthermore, static subsidence experiments revealed that the subsidence tendency of Gyroid porous AVI in polyurethane foam (simulated cancellous bone) was approximately 15.7% lower than that of traditional porous AVI.

CONCLUSIONS

The Gyroid porous AVI exhibited higher compressive strength and lower subsidence tendency than the strut-based traditional porous AVI, indicating it may be a promising substitute for spinal reconstruction.

3D printing metal implants in orthopedic surgery: Methods, applications and future prospects

Background

Currently, metal implants are widely used in orthopedic surgeries, including fracture fixation, spinal fusion, joint replacement, and bone tumor defect repair. However, conventional implants are difficult to be customized according to the recipient's skeletal anatomy and defect characteristics, leading to difficulties in meeting the individual needs of patients. Additive manufacturing (AM) or three-dimensional (3D) printing technology, an advanced digital fabrication technique capable of producing components with complex and precise structures, offers opportunities for personalization.

Methods

We systematically reviewed the literature on 3D printing orthopedic metal implants over the past 10 years. Relevant animal, cellular, and clinical studies were searched in PubMed and Web of Science. In this paper, we introduce the 3D printing method and the characteristics of biometals and summarize the properties of 3D printing metal implants and their clinical applications in orthopedic surgery. On this basis, we discuss potential possibilities for further generalization and improvement.

Results

3D printing technology has facilitated the use of metal implants in different orthopedic procedures. By combining medical images from techniques such as CT and MRI, 3D printing technology allows the precise fabrication of complex metal implants based on the anatomy of the injured tissue. Such patient-specific implants not only reduce excessive mechanical strength and eliminate stress-shielding effects, but also improve biocompatibility and functionality, increase cell and nutrient permeability, and promote angiogenesis and bone growth. In addition, 3D printing technology has the advantages of low cost, fast manufacturing cycles, and high reproducibility, which can shorten patients' surgery and hospitalization time. Many clinical trials have been conducted using customized implants. However, the use of modeling software, the operation of printing equipment, the high demand for metal implant materials, and the lack of guidance from relevant laws and regulations have limited its further application.

Conclusions

There are advantages of 3D printing metal implants in orthopedic applications such as personalization, promotion of osseointegration, short production cycle, and high material utilization. With the continuous learning of modeling software by surgeons, the improvement of 3D printing technology, the development of metal materials that better meet clinical needs, and the improvement of laws and regulations, 3D printing metal implants can be applied to more orthopedic surgeries.

The translational potential of this paper

Precision, intelligence, and personalization are the future direction of orthopedics. It is reasonable to believe that 3D printing technology will be more deeply integrated with artificial intelligence, 4D printing, and big data to play a greater role in orthopedic metal implants and eventually become an important part of the digital economy. We aim to summarize the latest developments in 3D printing metal implants for engineers and surgeons to design implants that more closely mimic the morphology and function of native bone.

Is three-dimension-printed mesh scaffold an alternative to reconstruct cavity bone defects near joints?

PURPOSE

Reconstruction of cavity bone defects after curettage of benign bone tumours around the joint remains challenging. We designed a novel 3D-printed mesh scaffold as a substitute for bone cement, aiming to support the articular surface, protect the subchondral bone, and reduce complication rates.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed seven patients who received curettage and reconstruction using a 3D-printed mesh scaffold between January 2020 and June 2021. Pain and function were evaluated using the 10-cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and the 1993 version of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS-93) score. Radiographs were used to evaluate articular surface supporting, subchondral bone protection, and complications.

RESULTS

The median functional MSTS-93 and VAS scores were both improved after surgery, and the median 3D-printed mesh scaffold volume was smaller than the median defect volume. Articular surface supporting, subchondral bone preservation, and osteogenesis were observed post-operatively. No related complications were observed during the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3D-printed mesh scaffold provided sufficient mechanical support for the articular surface and protected the subchondral bone. We recommended the 3D-printed mesh structure as an alternative to repair cavity bone defects around joints.