3D printing in medicine最新文献

Background: External fixators are complex, expensive orthopaedic devices used to stabilize high-energy and complex fractures of the extremities. Although the technology has advanced dramatically over the last several decades, the mechanical goals for fracture stabilization of these devices have remained unchanged. Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has the potential to advance the practice and access to external fixation devices in orthopaedics. This publication aims to systematically review and synthesize the current literature on 3D printed external fixation devices for managing orthopaedic trauma fractures.

Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocols were followed for this manuscript with minor exceptions. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Review, Google Scholar, and Scopus online databases were systematically searched. Two independent reviewers screened the search results based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria related to 3D printing and external fixation of fractures.

Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. These included one mechanical testing study, two computational simulation studies, three feasibility studies, and three clinical case studies. Fixator designs and materials varied significantly between authors. Mechanical testing revealed similar strength to traditional metal external fixators. Across all clinical studies, five patients underwent definitive treatment with 3D printed external fixators. They all had satisfactory reduction and healing with no reported complications.

Conclusions: The current literature on this topic is heterogeneous, with highly variable external fixator designs and testing techniques. A small and limited number of studies in the scientific literature have analyzed the use of 3D printing in this area of orthopaedic surgery. 3D printed external fixation design advancements have yielded promising results in several small clinical case studies. However, additional studies on a larger scale with standardized testing and reporting techniques are needed.

This editorial presents the vision for the newly formed (2022) European 3D Special Interest Group (EU3DSIG) in the landscape of medical 3D printing. There are four areas of work identified by the EU3DSIG in the current landscape, namely: 1) creating and fostering communication channels among researches, clinicians and industry, 2) generating awareness of hospitals point-of-care 3D technologies; 3) knowledge sharing and education; 4) regulation, registry and reimbursement models.

Rationale and objectives: The purpose of this study is to summarize a survey of radiology chief residents focused on 3D printing in radiology.

Materials and methods: An online survey was distributed to chief residents in North American radiology residencies by subgroups of the Association of University Radiologists. The survey included a subset of questions focused on the clinical use of 3D printing and perceptions of the role of 3D printing and radiology. Respondents were asked to define the role of 3D printing at their institution and asked about the potential role of clinical 3D printing in radiology and radiology residencies.

Results: 152 individual responses from 90 programs were provided, with a 46% overall program response rate (n = 90/194 radiology residencies). Most programs had 3D printing at their institution (60%; n = 54/90 programs). Among the institutions that perform 3D printing, 33% (n = 18/54) have structured opportunities for resident contribution. Most residents (60%; n = 91/152 respondents) feel they would benefit from 3D printing exposure or educational material. 56% of residents (n = 84/151) believed clinical 3D printing should be centered in radiology departments. 22% of residents (n = 34/151) believed it would increase communication and improve relationships between radiology and surgery colleagues. A minority (5%; 7/151) believe 3D printing is too costly, time-consuming, or outside a radiologist's scope of practice.

Conclusions: A majority of surveyed chief residents in accredited radiology residencies believe they would benefit from exposure to 3D printing in residency. 3D printing education and integration would be a valuable addition to current radiology residency program curricula.

Background: 3D-printed temporal bone models can potentially provide a cost-effective alternative to cadaver surgery that can be manufactured locally at the training department. The objective of this study was to create a cost-effective 3D-printed model suitable for mastoidectomy training using entry level and commercially available print technologies, enabling individuals, without prior experience on 3D-printing, to manufacture their own models for basic temporal bone training.

Methods: Expert technical professionals and an experienced otosurgeon identified the best material for replicating the temporal bone and created a cost-effective printing routine for the model using entry-level print technologies. Eleven participants at a temporal bone dissection course evaluated the model using a questionnaire.

Results: The 3D-printed temporal bone model was printed using a material extrusion 3D-printer with a heat resistant filament, reducing melting during drilling. After printing, a few simple post-processing steps were designed to replicate the dura, sigmoid sinus and facial nerve. Modifying the 3D-printer by installing a direct-drive and ruby nozzle resulted in more successful prints and less need for maintenance. Upon evaluation by otorhinolaryngology trainees, unanimous feedback was that the model provided a good introduction to the mastoidectomy procedure, and supplementing practice to cadaveric temporal bones.

Conclusion: In-house production of a cost-effective 3D-printed model for temporal bone training is feasible and enables training institutions to manufacture their own models. Further, this work demonstrates the feasibility of creating new temporal bone models with anatomical variation to provide ample training opportunity.

Background: Implantation of the femoral component with suboptimal version is associated with instability of the reconstructed hip joint. High variability of Prosthetic Femoral Version (PFV) has been reported in primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). Three-dimensional (3D) Patient-Specific Instrumentation (PSI) has been recently developed and may assist in delivering a PFV within the intended range. We performed a pilot study to better understand whether the intra-operative use of a novel PSI guide, designed to deliver a PFV of 20°, results in the target range of PFV in primary cemented THA.

Methods: We analysed post-operative Computed-Tomography (CT) data of two groups of patients who underwent primary cemented THA through posterior approach; 1. A group of 11 patients (11 hips) for which the surgeon used an intra-operative 3D-printed stem positioning guide (experimental) 2. A group of 24 patients (25 hips) for which the surgeon did not use the guide (control). The surgeon aimed for a PFV of 20°, and therefore the guide was designed to indicate the angle at which the stem was positioned intra-operatively. PFV angles were measured using the post-operative 3D-CT models of the proximal femurs and prosthetic components in both groups. Our primary objective was to compare the PFV in both groups. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the clinical outcome.

Results: Mean (± SD) values for the PFV was 21.3° (± 4.6°) and 24.6° (± 8.2°) for the experimental and control groups respectively. In the control group, 20% of the patients reported a PFV outside the intended range of 10° to 30° anteversion. In the experimental group, this percentage dropped to 0%. Satisfactory clinical outcome was recorded in both groups.

Conclusion: The intra-operative use of a PSI PFV guide helped the surgeon avoid suboptimal PFV in primary cemented THA. Further studies are needed to evaluate if the PSI guide directly contributes to a better clinical outcome.

Background: 3D (three-dimensional) printing has been adopted by the medical community in several ways, procedure planning being one example. This application of technology has been adopted by several subspecialties including interventional radiology, however the planning of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement has not yet been described. The impact of a 3D printed model on procedural measures such as procedure time, radiation exposure, intravascular contrast dosage, fluoroscopy time, and provider confidence has also not been reported.

Methods: This pilot study utilized a quasi-experimental design including patients who underwent TIPS. For the control group, retrospective data was collected on patients who received a TIPS prior to Oct 1, 2020. For the experimental group, patient-specific 3D printed models were integrated in the care of patients that received TIPS between Oct 1, 2020 and April 15, 2021. Data was collected on patient demographics and procedural measures. The interventionalists were surveyed on their confidence level and model usage following each procedure in the experimental group.

Results: 3D printed models were created for six TIPS. Procedure time (p = 0.93), fluoroscopy time (p = 0.26), and intravascular contrast dosage (p = 0.75) did not have significant difference between groups. Mean radiation exposure was 808.8 mGy in the group with a model compared to 1731.7 mGy without, however this was also not statistically significant (p = 0.09). Out of 11 survey responses from interventionists, 10 reported "increased" or "significantly increased" confidence after reviewing the 3D printed model and all responded that the models were a valuable tool for trainees.

Conclusions: 3D printed models of patient anatomy can consistently be made using consumer-level, desktop 3D printing technology. This study was not adequately powered to measure the impact that including 3D printed models in the planning of TIPS procedures may have on procedural measures. The majority of interventionists reported that patient-specific models were valuable tools for teaching trainees and that confidence levels increased as a result of model inclusion in procedure planning.

3D printing technology has become increasingly popular in healthcare settings, with applications of 3D printed anatomical models ranging from diagnostics and surgical planning to patient education. However, as the use of 3D printed anatomical models becomes more widespread, there is a growing need for regulation and quality control to ensure their accuracy and safety. This literature review examines the current state of 3D printing in hospitals and FDA regulation process for software intended for use in producing 3D printed models and provides for the first time a comprehensive list of approved software platforms alongside the 3D printers that have been validated with each for producing 3D printed anatomical models. The process for verification and validation of these 3D printed products, as well as the potential for inaccuracy in these models, is discussed, including methods for testing accuracy, limits, and standards for accuracy testing. This article emphasizes the importance of regulation and quality control in the use of 3D printing technology in healthcare, the need for clear guidelines and standards for both the software and the printed products to ensure the safety and accuracy of 3D printed anatomical models, and the opportunity to expand the library of regulated 3D printers.

Background: Botswana, like most sub-Sahara African nations, uses conventional orthopaedic implants that are sourced from major manufactures in the West. The implants are mass-produced and designed with universal configurations to fit an average patient. During surgery, surgeons thus sometimes bend the implants to match the individual bone anatomy, especially for paediatric patients and those with unique deformities, thus risking implant failure. The purpose of this project was to show the feasibility of developing safe and effective patient-specific orthopaedic implants in a low-resourced market.

Methods: CT Scan slice files of a paediatric patient with Ollier's disease were used to reconstruct the lower limb anatomy. The resultant files were 3D printed into prototypes that showed severe right knee valgus deformity. The surgeon used the prototype to plan for corrective femoral osteotomy and the required implant. The implant design and planned surgery were subsequently simulated on the Medical Design Studio software for proper fitting before final implant printing. Surgery was then performed, followed by 12 weeks of physiotherapy.

Results: Post-surgical x-rays demonstrated good implant positioning and knee joint alignment. At 18 months of post-surgical follow-up, the child was pain-free, could perform full squats, and ambulation was near-normal, without the use of an assistive device.

Conclusions: It is feasible to develop effective, patient-specific implants for selected orthopaedic cases in a low-resourced country. This work could improve surgical and rehabilitation outcomes for selected paediatric patients and those with severe bone deformities.

The use of medical 3D printing has expanded dramatically for breast diseases. A writing group composed of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Special Interest Group on 3D Printing (SIG) provides updated appropriateness criteria for breast 3D printing in various clinical scenarios. Evidence-based appropriateness criteria are provided for the following clinical scenarios: benign breast lesions and high-risk breast lesions, breast cancer, breast reconstruction, and breast radiation (treatment planning and radiation delivery).

Objective: Developments in 3-dimensional (3D) printing technology has made it possible to produce high quality, affordable 3D printed models for use in medicine. As a result, there is a growing assessment of this approach being published in the medical literature. The objective of this study was to outline the clinical applications of individualized 3D printing in gynecology through a scoping review.

Data sources: Four medical databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus) and grey literature were searched for publications meeting eligibility criteria up to 31 May 2021.

Study eligibility criteria: Publications were included if they were published in English, had a gynecologic context, and involved production of patient specific 3D printed product(s).

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Studies were manually screened and assessed for eligibility by two independent reviewers and data were extracted using pre-established criteria using Covidence software.

Results: Overall, 32 studies (15 abstracts,17 full text articles) were included in the scoping review. Most studies were either case reports (12/32,38%) or case series (15/32,47%). Gynecologic sub-specialties in which the 3D printed models were intended for use included: gynecologic oncology (21/32,66%), benign gynecology (6/32,19%), pediatrics (2/32,6%), urogynecology (2/32,6%) and reproductive endocrinology and infertility (1/32,3%). Twenty studies (63%) printed 5 or less models, 6/32 studies (19%) printed greater than 5 (up to 50 models). Types of 3D models printed included: anatomical models (11/32,34%), medical devices, (2/32,6%) and template/guide/cylindrical applicators for brachytherapy (19/32,59%).

Conclusions: Our scoping review has outlined novel clinical applications for individualized 3D printed models in gynecology. To date, they have mainly been used for production of patient specific 3D printed brachytherapy guides/applicators in patients with gynecologic cancer. However, individualized 3D printing shows great promise for utility in surgical planning, surgical education, and production of patient specific devices, across gynecologic subspecialties. Evidence supporting the clinical value of individualized 3D printing in gynecology is limited by studies with small sample size and non-standardized reporting, which should be the focus of future studies.