The Current Role of Three-Dimensional Printing in Plastic Surgery

Bonapace-Potvin

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

2021

Summary: Three-dimensional (3D) printing is used extensively in cranio-maxillo-facial (CMF) surgery, but its usage is limited in the setting of acute trauma specifically, as delays in outsourcing are too great. Therefore, we developed an in-house printing solution. The purpose of this study was to describe this process for surgeons treating acute CMF trauma. This series describes the printing process, time required, and printing material costs involved for in-house printing applied to a variety of acute CMF trauma cases involving the upper, middle, and lower thirds of the face and skull. All consecutive patients requiring in-house 3D printed models in a level 1 trauma center for acute trauma surgery in mid-2019 were identified and analyzed. Nine patients requiring the printing of 12 in-house models were identified. The overall printing time per model ranged from 2 hours, 36 minutes to 26 hours, 54 minutes (mean = 7h 55 min). Filament cost was between $0.20 and $2.65 per model (mean = $0.95). This study demonstrates that in-house 3D printing can be done in a relatively short period of time, therefore allowing 3D printing usage for various acute facial fracture treatments. The rapid improvements in the usability of 3D software and printing technology will likely contribute to further adoption of these technologies by CMF-trauma surgeons.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

In-house 3D Model Printing for Acute Cranio-maxillo-facial Trauma Surgery: Process, Time, and Costs

Bonapace-Potvin

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

2021

“…All models printed in-house were found to be of adequate accuracy, an observation also made by other groups using in-house printing. 7,9,11,12,16,17 PLA filament printing was also found to be reliable. 16 Printing issues with PLA, such as underextrusion and running out of filament, were easily detectable by simple visual inspection.…”

Section: Accuracy Of the Modelmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…When comparing outsourced to in-house 3D printed models, there are many aspects that must be taken into consideration: costs in equipment, 3,6 printing material [6][7][8][9][10][11] and labor, case preparation time by the surgeon, elapsed time to manufacture the model, [6][7][8][9]11,12 model accuracy, 7,12 regulatory agency approval, 3,6,13,14 surgeon's level of expertise with 3D technologies, etc. This paper focuses on a key issue of 3D printing for acute CMF trauma: the time to manufacture a model.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Printing in Time for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Trauma Surgery: Key Parameters to Factor in

Bonapace-Potvin

Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction

2022

Study Design retrospective cohort study. Objective 3D printing is used extensively in cranio-maxillo-facial (CMF) surgery, but difficulties remain for surgeons to implement it in an acute trauma setting because critical information is often omitted from reports. Therefore, we developed an in-house printing pipeline for a variety of cranio-maxillo-facial fractures and characterized each step required to print a model in time for surgery. Methods All consecutive patients requiring in-house 3D printed models in a level 1 trauma center for acute trauma surgery between March and November 2019 were identified and analyzed. Results Sixteen patients requiring the printing of 25 in-house models were identified. Virtual Surgical Planning time ranged from 0h 08min to 4h 41min (mean = 1h 46min). The overall printing phase per model (pre-processing, printing, and post-processing) ranged from 2h 54min to 27h 24min (mean = 9h 19min). The overall success rate of prints was 84%. Filament cost was between $0.20 and $5.00 per model (mean = $1.56). Conclusions This study demonstrates that in-house 3D printing can be done reliably in a relatively short period of time, therefore allowing 3D printing usage for acute facial fracture treatment. When compared to outsourcing, in-house printing shortens the process by avoiding shipping delays and by having a better control over the printing process. For time-critical prints, other time-consuming steps need to be considered, such as virtual planning, pre-processing of 3D files, post-processing of prints, and print failure rate.

Alexandria Dental Journal

“…The advantages of 3-D printing include improved preoperative planning, surgical accuracy (11,12), reduced operating room time (12)(13)(14), and reduced post-operative complications (15). For all these reasons, 3-D printing technology is considered a promising application in oral and maxillofacial surgery (16)(17)(18)(19).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Accuracy of 3-D Printed Reduction Guide in the Treatment of Zygomatico Maxillary Complex Fractures (A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)

Saber,

Darwish,

Hassan

et al. 2023

BACKGROUND:Fracture of Zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) is considered to be one of the major facial fractures. it can lead to significant cosmetic and functional disorders. Three-dimensional (3-D) printing applications are gaining a remarkable attention in the field of craniomaxillofacial and plastic surgery. As the benefits of patient-specific 3-D printing become more established, surgeons are more likely to integrate this technology into their practice. AIM OF THE STUDY:This study evaluated the accuracy of the use of 3-D printed reduction guide in the treatment of zygomatico maxillary complex fractures.Patients & Methods: This study was conducted clinically on 12 adult patients with ZMC fractures indicated for open reduction and internal fixation. The patients were divided into 2 groups, (group A): the 3D printed reduction guide was used during the surgery and (group B): the surgical procedures were done without the reduction guide. The reduction and fixation time was recorded for comparison. Postoperative patient evaluation was performed with specific attention paid towards, accuracy of reduction, infra orbital nerve affection and postoperative ocular complications. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the surgical reduction and fixation time between the two groups. The error differences were more reduced for all landmarks in group (A) compared to group (B). The mean AI was decreased for all landmarks in group (A) compared to group (B). CONCLUSION: The use of 3D printed reduction guide offers shorter operation time and improves the reduction of the fractured segments in comparison to the conventional reduction techniques.