Medicina (Feb 2023)

Patient-Specific Guides for Accurate and Precise Positioning of Osseointegrated Implants in Transfemoral Amputations: A Proof-of-Concept In Vitro Study

  • Emir Benca,
  • Beatrice Ferrante,
  • Ewald Unger,
  • Andreas Strassl,
  • Lena Hirtler,
  • Rickard Brånemark,
  • Reinhard Windhager,
  • Gerhard M. Hobusch

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59030429
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 59, no. 3
p. 429

Abstract

Read online

Background and Objectives: The treatment of transfemoral amputees using osseointegrated implants for prosthetic anchorage requires accurate implant positioning when using threaded bone-anchoring implants due to the curvature of the femur and the risk of cortical penetration in misaligned implants. This study investigated the accuracy and precision in implant positioning using additively manufactured case-specific positioning guides. Materials and Methods: The geometry and density distribution of twenty anatomic specimens of human femora were assessed in quantitative computed tomography (QCT) scanning. The imaging series were used to create digital 3D specimen models, preoperatively plan the optimal implant position and manufacture specimen-specific positioning guides. Following the surgical bone preparation and insertion of the fixture (threaded bone-anchoring element) (OPRA; Integrum AB, Mölndal, Sweden), a second QCT imaging series and 3D model design were conducted to assess the operatively achieved implant position. The 3D models were registered and the deviations of the intraoperatively achieved implant position from the preoperatively planned implant position were analyzed as follows. The achieved, compared to the planned implant position, was presented as resulting mean hip abduction or adduction (A/A) and extension or flexion (E/F) and mean implant axis offset in medial or lateral (M/L) and anterior or posterior (A/P) direction measured at the most distal implant axis point. Results: The achieved implant position deviated from the preoperative plan by 0.33 ± 0.33° (A/A) and 0.68 ± 0.66° (E/F) and 0.62 ± 0.55 mm (M/L) and 0.68 ± 0.56 mm (A/P), respectively. Conclusions: Using case-specific guides, it was feasible to achieve not only accurate but also precise positioning of the implants compared to the preoperative plan. Thus, their design and application in the clinical routine should be considered, especially in absence of viable alternatives.

Keywords