Traditional versus mirror three-dimensional printing technology for isolated acetabular fractures: a retrospective study with a median follow-up of 25 months

Abstract

Objective To assess the outcomes of traditional three-dimensional (3D) printing technology (TPT) versus mirror 3D printing technology (MTT) in treating isolated acetabular fractures (IAFs). Methods Consecutive patients with an IAF treated by either TPT or MTT at our tertiary medical centre from 2012 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Follow-up was performed 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively and annually thereafter. The primary outcome was the Harris hip score (HHS), and the secondary outcomes were major intraoperative variables and key orthopaedic complications. Results One hundred fourteen eligible patients (114 hips) with an IAF (TPT, n\u2009=\u200956; MTT, n\u2009=\u200958) were evaluated. The median follow-up was 25 months (range, 21–28 months). At the last follow-up, the mean HHS was 82.46 ±14.70 for TPT and 86.30\u2009±\u200913.26 for MTT with a statistically significant difference. Significant differences were also detected in the major intraoperative variables (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of fluoroscopic screenings, and anatomical reduction number) and the major orthopaedic complications (loosening, implant failure, and heterotopic ossification). Conclusion Compared with TPT, MTT tends to produce accurate IAF reduction and may result in better intraoperative variables and a lower rate of major orthopaedic complications.