Creating patient-specific anatomical models for 3D printing and AR/VR: a supplement for the 2018 Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) hands-on course

Low temperature vaporized hydrogen peroxide sterilization of 3D printed devices

BACKGROUND

Low temperature vaporized hydrogen peroxide sterilization (VH2O2) is used in hospitals today to sterilize reusable medical devices. VH2O2 sterilized 3D printed materials were evaluated for sterilization, biocompatibility and material compatibility.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Test articles were printed at Formlabs with BioMed Clear™ and BioMed Amber™, and at Stratasys with MED610™, MED615™ and MED620™. Sterilization, biocompatibility and material compatibility studies with 3D printed materials were conducted after VH2O2 sterilization in V-PRO™ Sterilizers. The overkill method was used to evaluate sterilization in a ½ cycle. Biocompatibility testing evaluated the processed materials as limited contact (< 24-hours) surface or externally communicating devices. Material compatibility after VH2O2 sterilization (material strength and dimensionality) was evaluated via ASTM methods and dimensional analysis.

RESULTS

3D printed devices, within a specific design window, were sterile after VH2O2 ½ cycles. After multiple cycle exposure, the materials were not cytotoxic, not sensitizing, not an irritant, not a systemic toxin, not pyrogenic and were hemo-compatible. Material compatibility via ASTM testing and dimensionality evaluations did not indicate any significant changes to the 3D printed materials after VH2O2 sterilization.

CONCLUSION

Low temperature vaporized hydrogen peroxide sterilization is demonstrated as a suitable method to sterilize 3D printed devices. The results are a subset of the data used in a regulatory submission with the US FDA to support claims for sterilization of 3D printed devices with specified materials, printers, and device design 1.

Status of Polymer Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM)-Based Three-Dimensional Printing (3DP) in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Additive manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing (3DP) is arguably a versatile and more efficient way for the production of solid dosage forms such as tablets. Of the various 3DP technologies currently available, fused deposition modeling (FDM) includes unique characteristics that offer a range of options in the production of various types of tablets. For example, amorphous solid dispersions (ASDs), enteric-coated tablets or poly pills can be produced using an appropriate drug/polymer combination during FDM 3DP. The technology offers the possibility of evolving personalized medicines into cost-effective production schemes at pharmacies and hospital dispensaries. In this review, we highlight key FDM features that may be exploited for the production of tablets and improvement of therapy, with emphasis on gastrointestinal delivery. We also highlight current constraints that must be surmounted to visualize the deployment of this technology in the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries.

Advanced Strategies for the Fabrication of Multi-Material Anatomical Models of Complex Pediatric Oncologic Cases

The printing and manufacturing of anatomical 3D models has gained popularity in complex surgical cases for surgical planning, simulation and training, the evaluation of anatomical relations, medical device testing and patient-professional communication. 3D models provide the haptic feedback that Virtual or Augmented Reality (VR/AR) cannot provide. However, there are many technologies and strategies for the production of 3D models. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to show and compare eight different strategies for the manufacture of surgical planning and training prototypes. The eight strategies for creating complex abdominal oncological anatomical models, based on eight common pediatric oncological cases, were developed using four common technologies (stereolithography (SLA), selectie laser sinterning (SLS), fused filament fabrication (FFF) and material jetting (MJ)) along with indirect and hybrid 3D printing methods. Nine materials were selected for their properties, with the final models assessed for application suitability, production time, viscoelastic mechanical properties (shore hardness and elastic modulus) and cost. The manufacturing and post-processing of each strategy is assessed, with times ranging from 12 h (FFF) to 61 h (hybridization of FFF and SLS), as labor times differ significantly. Cost per model variation is also significant, ranging from EUR 80 (FFF) to EUR 600 (MJ). The main limitation is the mimicry of physiological properties. Viscoelastic properties and the combination of materials, colors and textures are also substantially different according to the strategy and the intended use. It was concluded that MJ is the best overall option, although its use in hospitals is limited due to its cost. Consequently, indirect 3D printing could be a solid and cheaper alternative.

A training tool for clinicians in segmenting medical images to make 3D models

Introduction

3D models produced from medical imaging can be used to plan treatment, design prosthesis, teach and for communication. Despite the clinical benefit, few clinicians have experience of how 3D models are produced.This is the first study evaluating a training tool to teach clinicians to produce 3D models and reporting the perceived impact on their clinical practice.

Method

Following ethical approval, 10 clinicians completed a bespoke training tool, comprising written and video material alongside online support. Each clinician and 2 technicians (included as control) were sent 3 CT scans and asked to produce 6 fibula 3D models using an open-source software (3Dslicer). The produced models were compared to those produced by the technicians using Hausdorff distance calculation. Thematic analysis was used to study the post-intervention questionnaire.

Results

The mean Hausdorff distance between the final model produced by the clinicians and technicians was 0.65mm SD0.54mm. The first model made by clinicians took a mean time of 1hr 25mins and the final model took 16:04mins (5:00-46:00mins). 100% of learners reported finding the training tool useful and will employ it in future practice.

Discussion

The training tool described in this paper is able to successfully train clinicians to produce fibula models from CT scans. Learners were able to produce comparable models to technicians within an acceptable timeframe. This does not replace technicians. However, the learners perceived this training will allow them to use this technology in more cases, with appropriate case selection and they appreciate the limits of this technology.

3D printing exposure and perception in radiology residency: survey results of radiology chief residents

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.

Navigating the intersection of 3D printing, software regulation and quality control for point-of-care manufacturing of personalized anatomical models

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.

Three-dimensional technologies in presurgical planning of bone surgeries: current evidence and future perspectives

BACKGROUND

The recent development of three-dimensional (3D) technologies introduces a novel set of opportunities to the medical field in general, and specifically to surgery. The preoperative phase has proven to be a critical factor in surgical success. Utilization of 3D technologies has the potential to improve preoperative planning and overall surgical outcomes. In this narrative review article, the authors describe existing clinical data pertaining to the current use of 3D printing, virtual reality, and augmented reality in the preoperative phase of bone surgery.

METHODS

The methodology included keyword-based literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar for original articles published between 2014 and 2022. After excluding studies performed in nonbone surgery disciplines, data from 61 studies of five different surgical disciplines were processed to be included in this narrative review.

RESULTS

Among the mentioned technologies, 3D printing is currently the most advanced in terms of clinical use, predominantly creating anatomical models and patient-specific instruments that provide high-quality operative preparation. Virtual reality allows to set a surgical plan and to further simulate the procedure via a 2D screen or head mounted display. Augmented reality is found to be useful for surgical simulation upon 3D printed anatomical models or virtual phantoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 3D technologies are gradually becoming an integral part of a surgeon's preoperative toolbox, allowing for increased surgical accuracy and reduction of operation time, mainly in complex and unique surgical cases. This may eventually lead to improved surgical outcomes, thereby optimizing the personalized surgical approach.

Establishing a Point-of-Care Virtual Planning and 3D Printing Program

Virtual surgical planning (VSP) and three-dimensional (3D) printing have become a standard of care at our institution, transforming the surgical care of complex patients. Patient-specific, anatomic models and surgical guides are clinically used to improve multidisciplinary communication, presurgical planning, intraoperative guidance, and the patient informed consent. Recent innovations have allowed both VSP and 3D printing to become more accessible to various sized hospital systems. Insourcing such work has several advantages including quicker turnaround times and increased innovation through collaborative multidisciplinary teams. Centralizing 3D printing programs at the point-of-care provides a greater cost-efficient investment for institutions. The following article will detail capital equipment needs, institutional structure, operational personnel, and other considerations necessary in the establishment of a POC manufacturing program.

Algorithms used in medical image segmentation for 3D printing and how to understand and quantify their performance

BACKGROUND

3D printing (3DP) has enabled medical professionals to create patient-specific medical devices to assist in surgical planning. Anatomical models can be generated from patient scans using a wide array of software, but there are limited studies on the geometric variance that is introduced during the digital conversion of images to models. The final accuracy of the 3D printed model is a function of manufacturing hardware quality control and the variability introduced during the multiple digital steps that convert patient scans to a printable format. This study provides a brief summary of common algorithms used for segmentation and refinement. Parameters for each that can introduce geometric variability are also identified. Several metrics for measuring variability between models and validating processes are explored and assessed.

METHODS

Using a clinical maxillofacial CT scan of a patient with a tumor of the mandible, four segmentation and refinement workflows were processed using four software packages. Differences in segmentation were calculated using several techniques including volumetric, surface, linear, global, and local measurements.

RESULTS

Visual inspection of print-ready models showed distinct differences in the thickness of the medial wall of the mandible adjacent to the tumor. Volumetric intersections and heatmaps provided useful local metrics of mismatch or variance between models made by different workflows. They also allowed calculations of aggregate percentage agreement and disagreement which provided a global benchmark metric. For the relevant regions of interest (ROIs), statistically significant differences were found in the volume and surface area comparisons for the final mandible and tumor models, as well as between measurements of the nerve central path. As with all clinical use cases, statistically significant results must be weighed against the clinical significance of any deviations found.

CONCLUSIONS

Statistically significant geometric variations from differences in segmentation and refinement algorithms can be introduced into patient-specific models. No single metric was able to capture the true accuracy of the final models. However, a combination of global and local measurements provided an understanding of important geometric variations. The clinical implications of each geometric variation is different for each anatomical location and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by clinicians familiar with the process. Understanding the basic segmentation and refinement functions of software is essential for sites to create a baseline from which to evaluate their standard workflows, user training, and inter-user variability when using patient-specific models for clinical interventions or decisions.

3D-printed Cutting Guides for Lower Limb Deformity Correction in the Young Population

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional (3D) virtual surgical planning technology has advanced applications in the correction of deformities of long bones by enabling the production of 3D stereolithographic models, patient-specific instruments and surgical-guiding templates. Herein, we describe the implementation of this technology in young patients who required a corrective osteotomy for a complex 3-plane (oblique plane) lower-limb deformity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 17 patients (9 males, average age 14.7 y) participated in this retrospective study. As part of preoperative planning, the patients' computerized tomographic images were imported into a post-processing software, and virtual 3D models were created by a segmentation process. Femoral and tibial models and cutting guides with locking points were designed according to the deformity correction plan. They were used for both planning and as intraoperative guides. Clinical parameters, such as blood loss and operative time were compared with a traditional surgical approach group.

RESULTS

All osteotomies in the 3D group were executed with the use intraoperative customized cutting guides which matched the preoperative planning simulation and allowed easy fixation with prechosen plates. Surgical time was 101±6.2 minutes for the 3D group and 126.4±16.1 minutes for the control group. The respective intraoperative hemoglobin blood loss was 2.1±0.2 and 2.5+0.3 g/dL.Clinical and radiographic follow-up findings showed highly satisfactory alignment of the treated extremities in all 3D intervention cases, with an average time-to-bone union (excluding 2 neurofibromatosis 1 patients) of 10.3 weeks (range 6 to 20 wk).

CONCLUSION

The use of 3D-printed models and patient-specific cutting guides with locking points improves the clinical outcomes of osteotomies in young patients with complex bone deformities of the lower limbs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

An overview of 3D printing and the orthopaedic application of patient-specific models in malunion surgery

As the emerging technology of three-dimensional (3D) printing impacts several facets of medicine, innovative techniques and applications are increasingly being incorporated into clinical workflows. Specifically, 3D printing technology has allowed for the individualization of patient care through the creation of printed surgical guides, patient-specific anatomical models, and simulation practice models. In this paper, we review the broad applications of 3D printing in orthopaedic surgery. The purpose of this paper is to help orthopaedic trauma surgeons understand 3D printing's emerging influence on the delivery of care as well as how to directly apply this technology to their practice. We aim to illustrate these principles through a specific example of a patient who presented for malunion surgery. A 3D printed model of a very complex traumatic scapula malunion was used to not only pre-surgically plan the reconstruction, but to also facilitate provider and patient education. This paper highlights the benefits of 3D printing and how trauma surgeons are uniquely positioned to apply this technology to improve patient care.

Establishing 3D Printing at the Point of Care: Basic Principles and Tools for Success

As the medical applications of three-dimensional (3D) printing increase, so does the number of health care organizations in which adoption or expansion of 3D printing facilities is under consideration. With recent advancements in 3D printing technology, medical practitioners have embraced this powerful tool to help them to deliver high-quality patient care, with a focus on sustainability. The use of 3D printing in the hospital or clinic at the point of care (POC) has profound potential, but its adoption is not without unanticipated challenges and considerations. The authors provide the basic principles and considerations for building the infrastructure to support 3D printing inside the hospital. This process includes building a business case; determining the requirements for facilities, space, and staff; designing a digital workflow; and considering how electronic health records may have a role in the future. The authors also discuss the supported applications and benefits of medical 3D printing and briefly highlight quality and regulatory considerations. The information presented is meant to be a practical guide to assist radiology departments in exploring the possibilities of POC 3D printing and expanding it from a niche application to a fixture of clinical care. An invited commentary by Ballard is available online. ^©RSNA, 2022.

Three-dimensional imaging and three-dimensional printing for plastic preparation of medical interventions

Three-dimensional (3D) imaging has been available for nearly four decades and is regarded as state of the art for visualization of anatomy and pathology and for procedure planning in many clinical fields. Together with 3D image reconstructions in the form of rendered virtual 3D models, it has helped to better perceive complex anatomic and pathologic relations, improved preprocedural measuring and sizing of implants, and nowadays enables even photorealistic quality. However, presentation on 2D displays limits the 3D experience. Novel 3D printing technologies can transfer virtual anatomic models into true 3D space and produce both patient-specific models and medical devices constructed by computer-aided design. Individualized anatomic models hold great potential for medical and patient education, research, device development and testing, procedure training, preoperative planning, and fabrication of individualized instruments and implants. Hand in hand with 3D imaging, medical 3D printing has started to revolutionize medicine in certain fields and new applications are developed and introduced regularly. The demand for medical 3D printing will likely continue to rise, as it is a promising tool for plastic preparation of medical interventions. However, there is ongoing debate on the appropriateness of medical 3D printing and further research on its efficiency is needed. As experts in 3D imaging, radiologists are not only capable of advising on adequate imaging parameters, but should also become adept in 3D printing to participate in on-site 3D printing facilities and randomized controlled trials on the topic, thus contributing to improving patient outcomes via personalized medicine through patient-specific preparation of medical interventions.

Cost-Effective Method for 3-Dimensional Printing Dynamic Multiobject and Patient-Specific Brain Tumor Models: Technical Note

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a powerful tool for replicating patient-specific anatomic features for education and surgical planning. The advent of "desktop" 3D printing has created a cost-effective and widely available means for institutions with limited resources to implement a 3D-printing workflow into their clinical applications. The ability to physically manipulate the desired components of a "dynamic" 3D-printed model provides an additional dimension of anatomic understanding. There is currently a gap in the literature describing a cost-effective and time-efficient means of creating dynamic brain tumor 3D-printed models.

METHODS

Using free, open-access software (3D Slicer) for patient imaging to Standard Tessellation Language file conversion, as well as open access Standard Tessellation Language editing software (Meshmixer), both intraaxial and extraaxial brain tumor models of patient-specific pathology are created.

RESULTS

A step-by-step methodology and demonstration of the software manipulation techniques required for creating cost-effective, multidimensional brain tumor models for patient education and surgical planning are exhibited using a detailed written guide, images, and a video display.

CONCLUSIONS

In this technical note, we describe in detail the specific functions of free, open-access software and desktop 3D printing techniques to create dynamic and patient-specific brain tumor models for education and surgical planning.