Skip to main content
JDRS · Open access journal
Joint Diseases and
Related Surgery
Online manuscript submissionSubmit a manuscript e-ISSN 2687-4792

Review · Open access

A brief introduction to medical image processing, designing and 3D printing for orthopedic surgeons

PDF Cite this article

Batuhan Bahadır

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0002-4651-1063

O. Şahap Atik

Turkish Joint Diseases Foundation, Ankara, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0002-2162-8070

Ulunay Kanatlı

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0002-9807-9305

Baran Sarıkaya

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Health Sciences University, City Hospital, Bilkent, Ankara, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0002-9886-7221

Abstract

Advancements in technology and the industry have changed the way that physicians deliver healthcare to their patients. Orthopedic surgery is one of the medical fields chasing advancing technology closely and making it a part of routine practice quickly. Patient-centric approach and customization of the care according to patient's needs are the key components in this new concept. Customized surgical planning with three-dimensional (3D) modelling and printing of the anatomy of each patient scheduled for surgery, custom made implants are on their ways to become the standard of the care. As a result, a higher proportion of technical personnel than before is expected to be involved in the healthcare. Orthopedic surgeons need to be familiar with this new working model and technical terminology to be able to communicate with the technical members of healthcare thoroughly. Processing of the medical images, computer-aided design (CAD) programs and 3D printing are the crucial parts of this workflow. In this review, we discuss the basics concepts of these components with the examples from 3D Slicer as a medical image processing platform and Shapr3D as a CAD platform, with the aspect of orthopedic surgeons.

Declarations

Author Contributions

Idea and concept, supervision and critical review: O.Ş.A., U.K., B.B.; Literature review, interpretation and writing: B.B.; Control: O.Ş.A., U.K., B.S.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Financial Disclosure

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Data Sharing Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Jeyaraman M, Nallakumarasamy A, Jeyaraman N. Industry 5.0 in orthopaedics. Indian J Orthop 2022;56:1694-702. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-022-00712-6.
  2. Akundi A, Euresti D, Luna S, Ankobiah W, Lopes A, Edinbarough I. State of industry 5.0—analysis and identification of current research trends. Appl- Syst- Innov 2022;5:27. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi5010027
  3. Ertürk C, Ayyıldız S, Erdöl C. Orthopedics and 3D technology in Turkey: A preliminary report. Jt Dis Relat Surg 2021;32:279-89. DOI: 10.52312/jdrs.2021.20.
  4. Surucu S, Aydın M, Batma AG, Karaşahin D, Mahiroğulları M. Evaluation of the patient satisfaction of using a 3D printed medical casting in fracture treatment. Jt Dis Relat Surg 2022;33:180-6. DOI: 10.52312/jdrs.2022.372.
  5. Shah D, Naik L, Paunipagar B, Rasalkar D, Chaudhary K, Bagaria V. Setting up 3D printing services for orthopaedic applications: A step-by-step guide and an overview of 3DBioSphere. Indian J Orthop 2020;54(Suppl 2):217-27. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-020-00254-9.
  6. 3D Slicer, 3D Slicer Image Computing Platform. 2022. Available at: https://www.slicer.org/ [Accessed: 26.02.2023]
  7. Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, FillionRobin JC, Pujol S, et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30:1323-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001.
  8. 3D Slicer, 3D Slicer Community Web Page. 2023. Available at: https://discourse.slicer.org [Accessed: 26.02.2023]
  9. Mitsiopoulos N, Baumgartner RN, Heymsfield SB, Lyons W, Gallagher D, Ross R. Cadaver validation of skeletal muscle measurement by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1998;85:115- 22. DOI: 10.1152/jappl.1998.85.1.115.
  10. Willson K, Atala A. Medical 3D printing: Tools and techniques, today and tomorrow. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng 2022;13:481-99. DOI: 10.1146/annurevchembioeng-092220-015404.
  11. Bennett GW, Kim SK. Comparison of the fit of surgical guides manufactured with low-cost 3D printers. Gen Dent 2022;70:18-21.
  12. Quinn J, McFadden R, Chan CW, Carson L. Titanium for orthopedic applications: An overview of surface modification to improve biocompatibility and prevent bacterial biofilm formation. iScience 2020;23:101745. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101745.
  13. Shapr3D, Shapr3D Official Web Page. 2023. Available at: https://www.shapr3d.com [Accessed: 01.03.2023]