Scheuermann et al: Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of femoral fractures with 3D-printed bone models and custom surgical guides: A cadaveric study in dogs
Veterinary Surgery 7, 2023

🔍 Key Findings

  • Precontoured plates based on 3D-printed femurs produced accurate femoral alignment (median deviations <3 mm or <3° in all planes).
  • Both fracture reduction system (FRS) and intramedullary pin (IMP) methods achieved near-anatomic alignment in cadaveric femoral fractures.
  • FRS required fewer fluoroscopic images (median 7 vs. 26, P = .001), but longer surgical time (median 43 vs. 29 min, P = .011).
  • Sagittal plane alignment: FRS led to mild increased recurvatum (median 2.9°), but still within near-anatomic limits (<5°).
  • Axial alignment: Both groups achieved near-anatomic torsion (<10°), though one IMP case had acceptable (not near-anatomic) alignment.
  • Custom drill guides and FRS improved fluoroscopy efficiency but were cumbersome and time-consuming to use. Authors do not recommend current prototype for clinical use.
  • Clinical significance: 3D printed models allow accurate precontouring, reducing intra-op plate adjustment; custom guides may reduce radiation exposure for the surgical team.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

How critical is this paper for crushing the Boards?

🚨 Must-know. I’d bet on seeing this.

📚 Useful background, not must-know.

💤 Skip it. Doubt it’ll ever show up.

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the articles vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

Scheuermann et al: Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of femoral fractures with 3D-printed bone models and custom surgical guides: A cadaveric study in dogs
Veterinary Surgery 7, 2023

🔍 Key Findings

  • Precontoured plates based on 3D-printed femurs produced accurate femoral alignment (median deviations <3 mm or <3° in all planes).
  • Both fracture reduction system (FRS) and intramedullary pin (IMP) methods achieved near-anatomic alignment in cadaveric femoral fractures.
  • FRS required fewer fluoroscopic images (median 7 vs. 26, P = .001), but longer surgical time (median 43 vs. 29 min, P = .011).
  • Sagittal plane alignment: FRS led to mild increased recurvatum (median 2.9°), but still within near-anatomic limits (<5°).
  • Axial alignment: Both groups achieved near-anatomic torsion (<10°), though one IMP case had acceptable (not near-anatomic) alignment.
  • Custom drill guides and FRS improved fluoroscopy efficiency but were cumbersome and time-consuming to use. Authors do not recommend current prototype for clinical use.
  • Clinical significance: 3D printed models allow accurate precontouring, reducing intra-op plate adjustment; custom guides may reduce radiation exposure for the surgical team.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Know What Matters in the Literature - and Why

We distill peer-reviewed surgical studies into clinically relevant summaries and
exam-style questions, so you can make informed decisions with confidence.

Free Access. No Spam. Just Smarter Surgical Learning

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on MIPO with 3D-printed bone models, what was the authors’ recommendation regarding clinical use of the prototype fracture reduction system?

A. Strongly recommend immediate clinical adoption
B. Recommended only in cats
C. Not recommended due to inefficiency
D. Only useful for tibial fractures
E. Only suitable for teaching labs

Answer: Not recommended due to inefficiency

Explanation: Authors noted the system reduced fluoroscopy but was cumbersome and time-consuming, not ready for clinical cases.
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on MIPO with 3D-printed bone models, what postoperative alignment difference was noted in the FRS group compared to the virtual surgical plan?

A. Increased procurvatum
B. Increased recurvatum
C. Varus malalignment
D. Valgus malalignment
E. Excessive anteversion

Answer: Increased recurvatum

Explanation: FRS use caused a small but significant increase in recurvatum (median 2.9°, *P = .03*).
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on MIPO with 3D-printed bone models, what was the main advantage of using the fracture reduction system (FRS) compared to intramedullary pin (IMP) reduction?

A. Shorter surgical duration
B. Reduced intraoperative fluoroscopy use
C. Improved postoperative torsion alignment
D. Lower cost and easier setup
E. No difference was found

Answer: Reduced intraoperative fluoroscopy use

Explanation: FRS procedures required significantly fewer fluoroscopic images (median 7 vs. 26, *P = .001*).
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on MIPO with 3D-printed bone models, how accurate was alignment overall using precontoured plates from 3D-printed femurs?

A. >15 mm length discrepancy in most cases
B. Median deviations <3 mm or <3° in all planes
C. Acceptable but not near-anatomic in most cases
D. Only sagittal alignment was accurate
E. Alignment varied widely between cases

Answer: Median deviations <3 mm or <3° in all planes

Explanation: Precontoured plates from 3D models achieved highly accurate alignment across all planes.
In Scheuermann 2023 et al., on MIPO with 3D-printed bone models, what was the tradeoff of using the FRS compared with IMP reduction?

A. FRS required more fluoroscopy but was faster
B. FRS caused higher complication rates
C. FRS was slower but required less fluoroscopy
D. FRS eliminated need for preoperative planning
E. FRS caused unacceptable alignment

Answer: FRS was slower but required less fluoroscopy

Explanation: FRS increased surgical time (median 43 vs. 29 min, *P = .011*) while reducing fluoroscopy.

Access the full library of surgical summaries and exam-style questions.

Educational content developed independently and supported by Simini.

The maker of Simini Protect Lavage.