The use of 3D printing in orthopedic trauma is supported by clinical evidence. Existing computed tomography (CT) data are exploited for better stereotactic identification of morphological features of the fracture and enhanced surgical planning. Due to complex logistic, technical and resource constraints, deployment of 3D printing is not straightforward from the hospital management perspective. As a result not all trauma surgeons are able to confidently integrate 3D printing into the daily practice. We carried out an expert panel survey on six trauma units which utilized 3D printing routinely. The most frequent indications are acetabular and articular fractures and malalignments. Infrastructure and manpower structure varied between units. The installation of industrial grade machines and dedicated software as well as the use of trained personnel can enhance the capacity and reliability of fracture treatment. Setting up interdisciplinary jointly used 3d printing departments with sound financial and management structures may improve sustainability. The sometimes substantial logistic and technical barriers which impede the rapid delivery of 3D printed models are discussed.

Subtrochanteric fractures represent a distinct entity. They are different from proximal femoral fractures as well as femoral shaft fractures. Nowadays, these fractures are mainly found in the geriatric population. Fractures in younger patients are indicative of high-energy trauma. Comorbidities are important in the geriatric population whereas accompanying injuries are most important in younger patients. Early surgical stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures is the treatment of choice, which under certain circumstances should also be carried out within the framework of damage control orthopedics. Long cephalomedullary nails represent the standard procedure. In geriatric patients the primary aim is weight bearing stability. The risk of complications with subtrochanteric fractures in the literature is relatively high. Classical compression plates play a role in the management of complications.

The 3D printing technology is a relatively new procedure with a high potential, especially in the field of shoulder surgery. The 3D printing procedures are increasingly being developed and also gaining new users. Principally, 3D printing procedures can be applied preoperatively in planning the surgical procedure, patient clarification and in teaching; however, the technology is increasing being used intraoperatively. In addition to intraoperative visualization of the models, 3D printing permits the use of individual and specific instruments and implants. This allows the precise transfer of the preoperative planning to the surgical procedure. Inaccuracies are mainly caused by soft tissues. The 3D printing can be beneficial in the fields of arthroplasty, shoulder instability as well as orthopedic trauma. The literature shows promising results in relation to duration of surgery, blood loss and clinical results of the procedure. On the other hand, it is still unclear which indications warrant the use of 3D printing. Other aspects that raise questions are the time of planning, the production time and the additional cost that the use of 3D printing entails. Nonetheless, 3D printing represents a meaningful enhancement of the portfolio of surgeons, which becomes highly beneficial and useful in complex situations. Furthermore, this procedure enables a certain amount of flexibility when reacting to certain circumstances.

The centerpiece of a private accident insurer is the benefit promise in cases of disability, which must be determined by a doctor in due time. The insurer specifies the rates of the compensation scheme for loss or inability to function and the medical expert must then fall back on generally recognized, revised or updated assessment recommendations in order to be able to apply the given framework to the specific, individual situation of the insured person. In four steps (basics, upper and lower extremities [disability within the compensation scheme] and disability outside the compensation scheme) interdisciplinary consensus benchmarks for disability assessment are presented, which should form the basis of a uniform medical assessment of accident-related functional disorders in private accident insurance compensation.

The importance of 3D printing applications in the surgery of musculoskeletal tumors has increased in recent years. Even prior to the era of 3D printing, computer-assisted techniques, such as navigation, have proved their utility. Due to the variable appearance of bone tumors, there is a need for individual solutions. The 3D printing can be used for the development of anatomical demonstration models, the construction of patient-specific instruments and custom-made implants. For these three applications, different regulatory hurdles exist. Especially for the resection of pelvic tumors, 3D printing technologies seem to provide advantages due to the complicated anatomy and the proximity to relevant neurovascular structures. With the introduction of titanium printing, construction of individualized implants that fit exactly into the defect became feasible.

Distraction osteogenesis (DO) is a technique that can be successfully used to treat leg length discrepancies and to reconstruct long defects of bone. By gradual distraction of the bone fragments by approximately 1 mm per day, hypervascularization and an increased bone healing potential (growth stimulus) occur. So far, DO has almost exclusively been used longitudinally to generate new biologically active bone. Chronic wounds, ulcers and osteitis, especially in the region of the foot, are always a challenge for the treating surgeon, since treatment is tedious, the outcome uncertain and associated with possible loss of the extremity. Transverse distraction osteogenesis (tDO) now uses the growth stimulus of the DO translationally to treat distally located, chronic wounds and thus leads to accelerated wound healing. At the end of the 5‑week treatment, the transversely distracted fragment, located far proximal to the chronic wound, is back in its original location. The biological stimulus has a long-lasting effect, longer than the tDO itself. Further investigations into the mechanisms of action and treatment outcomes of tDO are required. If the previous results are confirmed, tDO may become a game changer and enable the limb salvage for a large proportion of findings that previously required amputation.

Revision amputation, ray amputation and narrowing of the hand can be indicated for pathological alterations of fingers and thumbs due to traumatic, inflammatory or vascular causes but also for functional deficits regarding mobility, sensibility, perfusion, and/or pain. Surgical amputation is considered if reconstructive options are no longer possible, not desired and are no longer meaningful with respect to effort and risks. Patients need to be informed about the expected deficits in function and esthetic appearance due to the amputation in advance. On the other hand, surgical amputations represent a good treatment option, for which the duration of treatment and scope are well estimated. Therefore, they are good options for patients with comorbidities, with concerns about extensive reconstructive surgery and with limited compliance. It is essential to respect anatomical and functional aspects to guarantee favorable surgical results and avoid complications, which might compromise the function of the hand beyond that which is unavoidable. The most frequent complications after creating a stump or ray resection are persistent pain, unstable skin and soft tissue conditions, mobility disorders, disturbing stumps without function, uncontrolled growth of nail remnants and recurrent inflammation.

Femoral head fractures a very rare emergency situation and occur in 4-17% of hip joint dislocations. Of femoral head dislocation fractures 3.7% occur in combination with acetabular fractures. Reduction of the dislocation should be immediately performed. Decisive for whether treatment should be conservative or surgical by resection of the fragments, reconstruction of the femoral head or prosthetic joint replacement, is the grading of the fracture type using the Pipkin classification. Surgical treatment appears to give a better outcome in Pipkin type 1 and Pipkin type 2 fractures than conservative treatment. The in-house cohort of patients showed a good long-term outcome after surgical reconstruction. The follow-up treatment is carried out with 6 weeks of floor contact and pharmaceutical ossification prophylaxis. The danger of secondary femoral head necrosis needs to be considered at all times. In patients aged > 65 years a primary endoprosthetic joint replacement is indicated.

After transfemoral amputation a prosthesis is required to restore autonomous standing and bipedal locomotion. Attachment of the prosthesis can be achieved either classically via socket suspension with a shaft in the stump or directly via implantation of an intramedullary transcutaneous femoral prosthesis (osseointegrated prosthesis).