Clinical situations for which 3D printing is considered an appropriate representation or extension of data contained in a medical imaging examination: adult cardiac conditions

Demographics, Utilization, Workflow, and Outcomes Based on Observational Data From the RSNA-ACR 3D Printing Registry

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to report data from the first 3 years of operation of the RSNA-ACR 3D Printing Registry.

METHODS

Data from June 2020 to June 2023 were extracted, including demographics, indications, workflow, and user assessments. Clinical indications were stratified by 12 organ systems. Imaging modalities, printing technologies, and numbers of parts per case were assessed. Effort data were analyzed, dividing staff members into provider and nonprovider categories. The opinions of clinical users were evaluated using a Likert scale questionnaire, and estimates of procedure time saved were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 20 sites and 2,637 cases were included, consisting of 1,863 anatomic models and 774 anatomic guides. Mean patient ages for models and guides were 42.4 ± 24.5 years and 56.3 ± 18.5 years, respectively. Cardiac models were the most common type of model (27.2%), and neurologic guides were the most common type of guide (42.4%). Material jetting, vat photopolymerization, and material extrusion were the most common printing technologies used overall (85.6% of all cases). On average, providers spent 92.4 min and nonproviders spent 335.0 min per case. Providers spent most time on consultation (33.6 min), while nonproviders focused most on segmentation (148.0 min). Confidence in treatment plans increased after using 3-D printing (P < .001). Estimated procedure time savings for 155 cases was 40.5 ± 26.1 min.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-dimensional printing is performed at health care facilities for many clinical indications. The registry provides insight into the technologies and workflows used to create anatomic models and guides, and the data show clinical benefits from 3-D printing.

Advanced 3D Visualization and 3D Printing in Radiology

Since the discovery of X-rays in 1895, medical imaging systems have played a crucial role in medicine by permitting the visualization of internal structures and understanding the function of organ systems. Traditional imaging modalities including Computed Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Ultrasound (US) present fixed two-dimensional (2D) images which are difficult to conceptualize complex anatomy. Advanced volumetric medical imaging allows for three-dimensional (3D) image post-processing and image segmentation to be performed, enabling the creation of 3D volume renderings and enhanced visualization of pertinent anatomic structures in 3D. Furthermore, 3D imaging is used to generate 3D printed models and extended reality (augmented reality and virtual reality) models. A 3D image translates medical imaging information into a visual story rendering complex data and abstract ideas into an easily understood and tangible concept. Clinicians use 3D models to comprehend complex anatomical structures and to plan and guide surgical interventions more precisely. This chapter will review the volumetric radiological techniques that are commonly utilized for advanced 3D visualization. It will also provide examples of 3D printing and extended reality technology applications in radiology and describe the positive impact of advanced radiological image visualization on patient care.

Guide for starting or optimizing a 3D printing clinical service

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has applications in many fields and has gained substantial traction in medicine as a modality to transform two-dimensional scans into three-dimensional renderings. Patient-specific 3D printed models have direct patient care uses in surgical and procedural specialties, allowing for increased precision and accuracy in developing treatment plans and guiding surgeries. Medical applications include surgical planning, surgical guides, patient and trainee education, and implant fabrication. 3D printing workflow for a laboratory or clinical service that produces anatomic models and guides includes optimizing imaging acquisition and post-processing, segmenting the imaging, and printing the model. Quality assurance considerations include supervising medical imaging expert radiologists' guidance and self-implementing in-house quality control programs. The purpose of this review is to provide a workflow and guide for starting or optimizing laboratories and clinical services that 3D-print anatomic models or guides for clinical use.

3D printing for left atrial appendage closure: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional printing (3D) has emerged as an alternative to imaging to guide left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) device sizing.

AIMS

We assessed the usefulness of 3D printing compared to a standard imaging-only approach for LAAC.

METHODS

We identified studies comparing an imaging-only with a 3D printing approach in LAAC. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed targeting a co-primary endpoint of disagreement in device sizing and leaks.

RESULTS

Eight studies that assigned 283 participants to an imaging-only approach and 3D printing approach (145 patients) were included. 3D printing significantly reduced the risk of the co-primary endpoint (risk raio (RR) = 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.37), with consistency across the studies (I2 = 0%). Individually, both device size disagreements [RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.06-0.29), P < 0.001] and leaks [RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.09-0.64) P = 0.004] were reduced under a 3D printing modeling strategy.

CONCLUSION

Compared with an imaging-only strategy, 3D printing is associated with reduction in device size disagreements and leaks.

Mitral Valve-in-Valve Implant of a Balloon-Expandable Valve Guided by 3-Dimensional Printing

Background

Our goal was to explore the role of 3-dimensional (3D) printing in facilitating the outcome of a mitral valve-in-valve (V-in-V) implant of a balloon-expandable valve.

Methods

From November 2020 to April 2021, 6 patients with degenerated mitral valves were treated by a transcatheter mitral V-in-V implant of a balloon-expandable valve. 3D printed mitral valve pre- and post-procedure models were prepared to facilitate the process by making individualized plans and evaluating the outcomes.

Results

Each of the 6 patients was successfully implanted with a balloon-expandable valve. From post-procedural images and the 3D printed models, we could clearly observe the valve at the ideal position, with the proper shape and no regurgitation. 3D printed mitral valve models contributed to precise decisions, the avoidance of complications, and the valuation of outcomes.

Conclusions

3D printing plays an important role in guiding the transcatheter mitral V-in-V implant of a balloon-expandable valve.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System (NCT02917980).

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.

Methods of 3D printing models of pituitary tumors

Background

Pituitary adenomas can give rise to a variety of clinical disorders and surgery is often the primary treatment option. However, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) does not always reliably identify the site of an adenoma. In this setting molecular (functional) imaging (e.g. ¹¹C-methionine PET/CT) may help with tumor localisation, although interpretation of these 2D images can be challenging. 3D printing of anatomicalal models for other indications has been shown to aid surgical planning and improve patient understanding of the planned procedure. Here, we explore the potential utility of four types of 3D printing using PET/CT and co-registered MRI for visualising pituitary adenomas.

Methods

A 3D patient-specific model based on a challenging clinical case was created by segmenting the pituitary gland, pituitary adenoma, carotid arteries and bone using contemporary PET/CT and MR images. The 3D anatomical models were printed using VP, MEX, MJ and PBF 3D printing methods. Different anatomicalal structures were printed in color with the exception of the PBF anatomical model where a single color was used. The anatomical models were compared against the computer model to assess printing accuracy. Three groups of clinicians (endocrinologists, neurosurgeons and ENT surgeons) assessed the anatomical models for their potential clinical utility.

Results

All of the printing techniques produced anatomical models which were spatially accurate, with the commercial printing techniques (MJ and PBF) and the consumer printing techniques (VP and MEX) demonstrating comparable findings (all techniques had mean spatial differences from the computer model of < 0.6 mm). The MJ, VP and MEX printing techniques yielded multicolored anatomical models, which the clinicians unanimously agreed would be preferable to use when talking to a patient; in contrast, 50%, 40% and 0% of endocrinologists, neurosurgeons and ENT surgeons respectively would consider using the PBF model.

Conclusion

3D anatomical models of pituitary tumors were successfully created from PET/CT and MRI using four different 3D printing techniques. However, the expert reviewers unanimously preferred the multicolor prints. Importantly, the consumer printers performed comparably to the commercial MJ printing technique, opening the possibility that these methods can be adopted into routine clinical practice with only a modest investment.

Three-Dimensional Printed Anatomic Models Derived From Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data: Current State and Image Acquisition Recommendations for Appropriate Clinical Scenarios

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies have been increasingly utilized in medicine over the past several years and can greatly facilitate surgical planning thereby improving patient outcomes. Although still much less utilized compared to computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is gaining traction in medical 3D printing. The purpose of this study was two-fold: 1) to determine the prevalence in the existing literature of using MRI to create 3D printed anatomic models for surgical planning and 2) to provide image acquisition recommendations for appropriate clinical scenarios where MRI is the most suitable imaging modality. The workflow for creating 3D printed anatomic models from medical imaging data is complex and involves image segmentation of the regions of interest and conversion of that data into 3D surface meshes, which are compatible with printing technologies. CT is most commonly used to create 3D printed anatomic models due to the high image quality and relative ease of performing image segmentation from CT data. As compared to CT datasets, 3D printing using MRI data offers advantages since it provides exquisite soft tissue contrast needed for accurate organ segmentation and it does not expose patients to unnecessary ionizing radiation. MRI, however, often requires complicated imaging techniques and time-consuming postprocessing procedures to generate high-resolution 3D anatomic models needed for 3D printing. Despite these challenges, 3D modeling and printing from MRI data holds great clinical promises thanks to emerging innovations in both advanced MRI imaging and postprocessing techniques. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICATCY: 5.