Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Recent advances of 3D-printing in spine surgery

Iqbal J., Zafar Z., Skandalakis G., Kuruba V., Madan S., Kazim SF.

Narrative Review on Back & Spine, published in Surg Neurol Int (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Surg Neurol Int (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39246777
PMCID
PMC11380890
DOI
10.25259/sni_460_2024
Citations
11

Abstract (original English)

Background The emerging use of three-dimensional printing (3DP) offers improved surgical planning and personalized care. The use of 3DP technology in spinal surgery has several common applications, including models for preoperative planning, biomodels, surgical guides, implants, and teaching tools. Methods A literature review was conducted to examine the current use of 3DP technology in spinal surgery and identify the challenges and limitations associated with its adoption. Results The review reveals that while 3DP technology offers the benefits of enhanced stability, improved surgical outcomes, and the feasibility of patient-specific solutions in spinal surgeries, several challenges remain significant impediments to widespread adoption. The obvious expected limitation is the high cost associated with implementing and maintaining a 3DP facility and creating customized patient-specific implants. Technological limitations, including the variability between medical imaging and en vivo surgical anatomy, along with the reproduction of intricate high-fidelity anatomical detail, pose additional challenges. Finally, the lack of comprehensive clinical monitoring, inadequate sample sizes, and high-quality scientific evidence all limit our understanding of the full scope of 3DP's utility in spinal surgery and preclude widespread adoption and implementation. Conclusion Despite the obvious

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research