ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of using 3D printing to develop medical devices across all medical fields.DesignSystematic review compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, OVID, IEEE Xplore and Google Scholar.MethodsA double-blinded review method was used to select all abstracts up to January 2017 that reported on clinical trials of a three-dimensional (3D)-printed medical device. The studies were ranked according to their level of evidence, divided into medical fields based on the International Classification of Diseases chapter divisions and categorised into whether they were used for preoperative planning, aiding surgery or therapy. The Downs and Black Quality Index critical appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of reporting, external validity, risk of bias, risk of confounding and power of each study.ResultsOf the 3084 abstracts screened, 350 studies met the inclusion criteria. Oral and maxillofacial surgery contained 58.3% of studies, and 23.7% covered the musculoskeletal system. Only 21 studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and all fitted within these two fields. The majority of RCTs were 3D-printed anatomical models for preoperative planning and guides for aiding surgery. The main benefits of these devices were decreased surgical operation times and increased surgical accuracy.ConclusionsAll medical fields that assessed 3D-printed devices concluded that they were clinically effective. The fields that most rigorously assessed 3D-printed devices were oral and maxillofacial surgery and the musculoskeletal system, both of which concluded that the 3D-printed devices outperformed their conventional comparators. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of 3D-printed devices remain undetermined for the majority of medical fields. 3D-printed devices can play an important role in healthcare, but more rigorous and long-term assessments are needed to determine if 3D-printed devices are clinically relevant before they become part of standard clinical practice.

Background: Understanding how prostheses are used in everyday life is central to the design, provision and evaluation of prosthetic devices and associated services. This paper reviews the scientific literature on methodologies and technologies that have been used to assess the daily use of both upper-and lower-limb prostheses. It discusses the types of studies that have been undertaken, the technologies used to monitor physical activity, the benefits of monitoring daily living and the barriers to long-term monitoring, with particular focus on low-resource settings. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and EMBASE of studies that monitored the activity of prosthesis users during daily-living. Results: Sixty lower-limb studies and 9 upper-limb studies were identified for inclusion in the review. The first studies in the lower-limb field date from the 1990s and the number has increased steadily since the early 2000s. In contrast, the studies in the upper-limb field have only begun to emerge over the past few years. The early lowerlimb studies focused on the development or validation of actimeters, algorithms and/or scores for activity classification. However, most of the recent lower-limb studies used activity monitoring to compare prosthetic components. The lower-limb studies mainly used step-counts as their only measure of activity, focusing on the amount of activity, not the type and quality of movements. In comparison, the small number of upper-limb studies were fairly evenly spread between development of algorithms, comparison of everyday activity to clinical scores, and comparison of different prosthesis user populations. Most upper-limb papers reported the degree of symmetry in activity levels between the arm with the prosthesis and the intact arm. Conclusions: Activity monitoring technology used in conjunction with clinical scores and user feedback, offers significant insights into how prostheses are used and whether they meet the user's requirements. However, the cost, limited battery-life and lack of availability in many countries mean that using sensors to understand the daily use of prostheses and the types of activity being performed has not yet become a feasible standard clinical practice. This review provides recommendations for the research and clinical communities to advance this area for the benefit of prosthesis users.

Background:Three-dimensional printing provides an exciting opportunity to customise upper-limb prostheses.Objective:This review summarises the research that assesses the efficacy and effectiveness of three-dimensional printed upper-limb prostheses.Study design:Systematic review.Methods:PubMed, Web of Science and OVID were systematically searched for studies that reported human trials of three-dimensional printed upper-limb prostheses. The studies matching the language, peer-review and relevance criteria were ranked by level of evidence and critically appraised using the Downs and Black Quality Index.Results:After removing duplicates, 321 records were identified. Eight papers met the inclusion criteria. No studies used controls; five were case studies and three were small case-series studies. All studies showed promising results, but none demonstrated external validity, avoidance of bias or statistically significant improvements over conventional prostheses. The studies demonstrated proof-of-concept rather than assessing efficacy, and the devices were designed to prioritise reduction of manufacturing costs, not customisability for comfort and function.Conclusion:The potential of three-dimensional printing for individual customisation has yet to be fully realised, and the efficacy and effectiveness to be rigorously assessed. Until randomised controlled trials with follow-up are performed, the comfort, functionality, durability and long-term effects on quality of life remain unknown.Clinical relevanceInitial studies suggest that three-dimensional printing shows promise for customising low-cost upper-limb prosthetics. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these devices have yet to be rigorously assessed. Until randomised controlled trials with follow-up are performed, the comfort, functionality, durability and long-term effects on patient quality of life remain unknown.

The VR simulations have been validated for teaching sinus anatomy and nasendoscopy to medical students, interns and RMOs. However, they require further development before they can be regarded as a valid tool for more advanced surgical training.