Applying 3D-Printed Porous Ti6Al4V Prostheses to Repair Osteomyelitis-Induced Partial Bone Defects of Lower Limbs: Finite Element Analysis and Clinical Outcomes

Abstract

Objective: The clinical management of partial bone defects in lower limbs, particularly those resulting from osteomyelitis, remains a significant challenge. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of 3D-printed porous Ti6Al4V prostheses in addressing osteomyelitis-induced partial bone defects.

Methods: We established a comprehensive protocol for utilizing 3D-printed prostheses for bone defect repair, encompassing 3D simulation of prosthesis implantation and internal fixation, finite element analysis (FEA), and clinical implementation. Mimics software facilitated simulation of fixation patterns and screw lengths. FEA modeled bone defects in the distal metaphyseal femur and distal diaphyseal tibia to assess changes in stress conduction pre- and post-prosthesis implantation. The clinical study involved eight patients (average age: 56.3 years) with an average defect length of 14.9 cm. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using X-rays and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS).

Results: FEA demonstrated that the implanted prostheses effectively shared stress and reduced the load on residual bone in both models, thus lowering the risk of fractures under external forces. The average follow-up period was 24.5 months, with patients initiating weight-bearing activities on average 7.8 days post-surgery. Serial postoperative X-rays demonstrated long-term stability of the prostheses, with progressive bone regeneration around and integration with the prostheses. While two patients experienced infection recurrence requiring prosthesis removal and debridement, the remaining six showed significant improvement in LEFS scores, increasing from 31.5 preoperatively to 61.0 at the last follow-up.

Conclusions: 3D-printed porous Ti6Al4V prostheses effectively restore anatomical integrity and optimize stress conduction in lower limbs, resulting in substantial functional recovery. This innovative approach shows promise for wider clinical adoption and warrants further investigation in medical practice.

Keywords

3D printing technology / clinical study / finite element analysis / osseointegration / partial bone defect

References

[1] L. Hua, P. Lei, and Y. Hu, “Knee Reconstruction Using 3D-Printed Porous Tantalum Augment in the Treatment of Charcot Joint,” Orthopaedic Surgery 14, no. 11 (2022): 3125–3128.

[2] S. Gannamani, K. R. Rachakonda, Y. Tellakula, H. Takkalapally, V. R. Maryada, and A. V. Gurava Reddy, “Combining Non-Vascularized Fibula and Cancellous Graft in the Masquelet Technique: A Promising Approach to Distal Femur Compound Fracture Management With Large Defects,” Injury 55, no. 2 (2024): 111233.

[3] B. Liu, X. Li, W. Qiu, et al., “Mechanical Distribution and New Bone Regeneration After Implanting 3D Printed Prostheses for Repairing Metaphyseal Bone Defects: A Finite Element Analysis and Prospective Clinical Study,” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 10 (2022): 921545.

[4] M. Munakata, Y. Kataoka, K. Yamaguchi, and M. Sanda, “Risk Factors for Early Implant Failure and Selection of Bone Grafting Materials for Various Bone Augmentation Procedures: A Narrative Review,” Bioengineering (Basel) 11, no. 2 (2024): 192.

[5] Y. H. Tsai, C. C. Tseng, Y. C. Lin, et al., “Novel Artificial Tricalcium Phosphate and Magnesium Composite Graft Facilitates Angiogenesis in Bone Healing,” Biomedical Journal 3 (2024): 100750.

[6] R. Schoop, “Treatment Outcome of the Masquelet Technique in 195 Infected Bone Defects-A Single-Center, Retrospective Case Series,” Injury 54, no. 10 (2023): 110923.

[7] K. Liu, L. Shi, Y. Liu, and A. Yusufu, “Ilizarov Bone Transport Versus Masquelet Technique for the Treatment of Bone Defects Caused by Infection: A Meta-Analysis,” Asian Journal of Surgery 46, no. 12 (2023): 6109–6111.

[8] X. Y. Ma, H. Yuan, D. Cui, et al., “Management of Segmental Defects Post Open Distal Femur Fracture Using a Titanium Cage Combined With the Masquelet Technique A Single-Centre Report of 23 Cases,” Injury 54, no. 12 (2023): 111130.

[9] B. Liu, G. Hou, Z. Yang, et al., “Repair of Critical Diaphyseal Defects of Lower Limbs by 3D Printed Porous Ti6Al4V Scaffolds Without Additional Bone Grafting: A Prospective Clinical Study,” Journal of Materials Science. Materials in Medicine 33, no. 9 (2022): 64.

[10] B. Zhao, Q. Peng, R. Zhou, H. Liu, S. Qi, and R. Wang, “Precision Medicine in Tissue Engineering on Bone,” Methods in Molecular Biology 2204 (2020): 207–215.

[11] A. Fallah, M. Altunbek, P. Bartolo, et al., “3D Printed Scaffold Design for Bone Defects With Improved Mechanical and Biological Properties,” Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 134 (2022): 105418.

[12] Y. Gu, Y. Sun, S. Shujaat, A. Braem, C. Politis, and R. Jacobs, “3D-Printed Porous Ti6Al4V Scaffolds for Long Bone Repair in Animal Models: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 17, no. 1 (2022): 68.

[13] M. Regis, E. Marin, L. Fedrizzi, and M. Pressacco, “Additive Manufacturing of Trabecular Titanium Orthopedic Implants,” MRS Bulletin 40, no. 2 (2015): 137–144.

[14] N. Taniguchi, S. Fujibayashi, M. Takemoto, et al., “Effect of Pore Size on Bone Ingrowth Into Porous Titanium Implants Fabricated by Additive Manufacturing: An In Vivo Experiment,” Materials Science & Engineering. C, Materials for Biological Applications 59, no. 5 (2016): 690–701.

[15] M. Yan, T. Liang, H. Zhao, et al., “Model Properties and Clinical Application in the Finite Element Analysis of Knee Joint: A Review,” Orthopaedic Surgery 16, no. 2 (2024): 289–302.

[16] J. Dong, H. Ding, Q. Wang, and L. Wang, “A 3D-Printed Scaffold for Repairing Bone Defects,” Polymers (Basel) 16, no. 5 (2024): 706.

[17] R. Mundi, D. Pincus, E. Schemitsch, et al., “Association Between Periprosthetic Joint Infection and Mortality Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 106, no. 17 (2024): 1546–1552.

[18] E. F. Liechti, P. Linke, T. Gehrke, M. Citak, and C. Lausmann, “Outcomes of Rotating Versus Pure Hinge Knee Arthroplasty in the Setting of One-Stage Exchange for Periprosthetic Joint Infection,” International Orthopaedics 48, no. 7 (2024): 1751–1759.

[19] P. Thornley, M. Vicente, A. MacDonald, N. Evaniew, M. Ghert, and R. Velez, “Causes and Frequencies of Reoperations After Endoprosthetic Reconstructions for Extremity Tumor Surgery: A Systematic Review,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 477, no. 4 (2019): 894–902.

[20] K. Tetsworth, S. Block, and V. Glatt, “Putting 3D Modelling and 3D Printing Into Practice: Virtual Surgery and Preoperative Planning to Reconstruct Complex Post-Traumatic Skeletal Deformities and Defects,” SICOT Journal 3 (2017): 16.

[21] B. Abar, N. Kwon, N. B. Allen, et al., “Outcomes of Surgical Reconstruction Using Custom 3d-Printed Porous Titanium Implants for Critical-Sized Bone Defects of the Foot and Ankle,” Foot & Ankle International 43, no. 6 (2022): 750–761.

[22] K. Tetsworth, A. Woloszyk, and V. Glatt, “3D Printed Titanium Cages Combined With the Masquelet Technique for the Reconstruction of Segmental Femoral Defects: Preliminary Clinical Results and Molecular Analysis of the Biological Activity of Human-Induced Membranes,” OTA International 2, no. 1 (2019): e016.

[23] F. Zhao, Y. Xiong, K. Ito, B. van Rietbergen, and S. Hofmann, “Porous Geometry Guided Micro-Mechanical Environment Within Scaffolds for Cell Mechanobiology Study in Bone Tissue Engineering,” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 9 (2021): 736489.

[24] K. E. Dittmer and E. C. Firth, “Mechanisms of Bone Response to Injury,” Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 29, no. 4 (2017): 385–395.

[25] R. A. Brand, “Biographical Sketch: Julius Wolff, 1836-1902,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 468, no. 4 (2010): 1047–1049.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.