Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2023; 58(02): 284-289
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1750751
Artigo Original
Ombro e Cotovelo

Effectiveness in Sterilization of Objects Produced by 3D Printing with Polylactic Acid Material: Comparison Between Autoclave and Ethylene Oxide Methods

Article in several languages: português | English
Carlos Henrique Ramos 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia do Hospital XV, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
,
Pedro Minuzzi Wild 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia do Hospital XV, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
,
Eduardo de Carvalho Martins 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia do Hospital XV, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
› Author Affiliations Financial Support The present study received no financial support from public, commercial, or not-for-profit sources.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Due to the popularity of 3D technology, surgeons can create specific surgical guides and sterilize them in their institutions. The aim of the present study is to compare the efficacy of the autoclave and ethylene oxide (EO) sterilization methods for objects produced by 3D printing with polylactic acid (PLA) material.

Methods Forty cubic-shaped objects were printed with PLA material. Twenty were solid and 20 were hollow (printed with little internal filling). Twenty objects (10 solid and 10 hollow) were sterilized in autoclave, forming Group 1. The others (10 solid and 10 hollow) were sterilized in EO, composing Group 2. After sterilization, they were stored and referred to culture. Hollow objects of both groups were broken during sowing, communicating the dead space with the culture medium. The results obtained were statistically analyzed (Fisher exact test and residue analysis).

Results In group 1 (autoclave), there was bacterial growth in 50% of solid objects and in 30% of hollow objects. In group 2 (EO), growth occurred in 20% of hollow objects, with no bacterial growth in solid objects (100% of negative samples). The bacteria isolated in the positive cases was non-coagulase-producing Staphylococcus Gram positive.

Conclusions Sterilization by both autoclave and EO was not effective for hollow printed objects. Solid objects sterilized by autoclave did not demonstrate 100% of negative samples and were not safe in the present assay. Complete absence of contamination occurred only with solid objects sterilized by EO, which is the combination recommended by the authors.

Keywords

sterilization - printing, three-dimensional - ethylene oxide - biodegradable plastics

Work developed at Hospital XV, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.




Publication History

Received: 10 October 2021

Accepted: 17 May 2022

Article published online:
22 July 2022

© 2022. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Tack P, Victor J, Gemmel P, Annemans L. 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: a systematic literature review. Biomed Eng Online 2016; 15 (01) 115
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Hoang D, Perrault D, Stevanovic M, Ghiassi A. Surgical applications of three-dimensional printing: a review of the current literature & how to get started. Ann Transl Med 2016; 4 (23) 456
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Patel DA, Cosman DP. Three-dimensional Printing Technology in Surgery. Surg Curr Res 2016; 06 (01) 6-11
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Langridge B, Momin S, Coumbe B, Woin E, Griffin M, Butler P. Systematic Review of the Use of 3-Dimensional Printing in Surgical Teaching and Assessment. J Surg Educ 2018; 75 (01) 209-221
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Rankin TM, Giovinco NA, Cucher DJ, Watts G, Hurwitz B, Armstrong DG. Three-dimensional printing surgical instruments: are we there yet?. J Surg Res 2014; 189 (02) 193-197
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Mulford JS, Babazadeh S, Mackay N. Three-dimensional printing in orthopaedic surgery: review of current and future applications. ANZ J Surg 2016; 86 (09) 648-653
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Chung KJ, Hong DY, Kim YT, Yang I, Park YW, Kim HN. Preshaping plates for minimally invasive fixation of calcaneal fractures using a real-size 3D-printed model as a preoperative and intraoperative tool. Foot Ankle Int 2014; 35 (11) 1231-1236
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Trauner KB. The Emerging Role of 3D Printing in Arthroplasty and Orthopedics. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (08) 2352-2354
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Lal H, Patralekh MK. 3D printing and its applications in orthopaedic trauma: A technological marvel. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2018; 9 (03) 260-268
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Mothes FC, Britto A, Matsumoto F, Tonding M, Ruaro R. Application of three-dimensional prototyping in planning the treatment of proximal humerus bone deformities. Rev Bras Ortop 2018; 53 (05) 595-601
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Morrison RJ, Kashlan KN, Flanangan CL. et al. Regulatory Considerations in the Design and Manufacturing of Implantable 3D-Printed Medical Devices. Clin Transl Sci 2015; 8 (05) 594-600
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Sosnowski E-P, Morrison J. Sterilization of medical 3D printed plastics : Is H2O2 vapour suitable? Can Med Biol Eng Scoiety. 2017;40(1). Available from: https://proceedings.cmbes.ca/index.php/proceedings/article/view/622/616
  • 13 Rosenzweig DH, Carelli E, Steffen T, Jarzem P, Haglund L. 3D-printed ABS and PLA scaffolds for cartilage and nucleus pulposustissue regeneration. Int J Mol Sci 2015; 16 (07) 15118-15135
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Marei HF, Alshaia A, Alarifi S, Almasoud N, Abdelhady A. Effect of Steam Heat Sterilization on the Accuracy of 3D Printed Surgical Guides. Implant Dent 2019; 28 (04) 372-377
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Wojtyła S, Klama P, Baran T. Is 3D printing safe? Analysis of the thermal treatment of thermoplastics: ABS, PLA, PET, and nylon. J Occup Environ Hyg 2017; 14 (06) D80-D85
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Boursier JF, Fournet A, Bassanino J, Manassero M, Bedu AS, Leperlier D. Reproducibility, Accuracy and Effect of Autoclave Sterilization on a Thermoplastic Three-Dimensional Model Printed by a Desktop Fused Deposition Modelling Three-Dimensional Printer. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2018; 31 (06) 422-430
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Mendes GC, Brandão TR, Silva CL. Ethylene oxide sterilization of medical devices: a review. Am J Infect Control 2007; 35 (09) 574-581
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Ries MD, Weaver K, Beals N. Safety and efficacy of ethylene oxide sterilized polyethylene in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; (331) 159-163
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Skalski K, Świeszkowski W, Pomianowski S, Kedzior K, Kowalik S. Radial head prosthesis with a mobile head. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2004; 13 (01) 78-85
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Shaheen E, Alhelwani A, Van De Casteele E, Politis C, Jacobs R. Evaluation of Dimensional Changes of 3D Printed Models After Sterilization: A Pilot Study. Open Dent J 2018; 12 (01) 72-79
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Pérez Davila S, González Rodríguez L, Chiussi S, Serra J, González P. How to Sterilize Polylactic Acid Based Medical Devices?. Polymers (Basel) 2021; 13 (13) 2115
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Neches RY, Flynn KJ, Zaman L, Tung E, Pudlo N. On the intrinsic sterility of 3D printing. PeerJ 2016; 4: e2661
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Skelley NW, Hagerty MP, Stannard JT, Feltz KP, Ma R. Sterility of 3D-Printed Orthopedic Implants Using Fused Deposition Modeling. Orthopedics 2020; 43 (01) 46-51
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Aguado-Maestro I, De Frutos-Serna M, González-Nava A, Merino-De Santos AB, García-Alonso M. Are the common sterilization methods completely effective for our in-house 3D printed biomodels and surgical guides?. Injury 2021; 52 (06) 1341-1345
    Google Scholar