Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Abdominal Radiology
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 10/2018

01-10-2018 | Perspective

Principles of three-dimensional printing and clinical applications within the abdomen and pelvis

Authors: Sarah Bastawrous, Nicole Wake, Dmitry Levin, Beth Ripley

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 10/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Improvements in technology and reduction in costs have led to widespread interest in three-dimensional (3D) printing. 3D-printed anatomical models contribute to personalized medicine, surgical planning, and education across medical specialties, and these models are rapidly changing the landscape of clinical practice. A physical object that can be held in one’s hands allows for significant advantages over standard two-dimensional (2D) or even 3D computer-based virtual models. Radiologists have the potential to play a significant role as consultants and educators across all specialties by providing 3D-printed models that enhance clinical care. This article reviews the basics of 3D printing, including how models are created from imaging data, clinical applications of 3D printing within the abdomen and pelvis, implications for education and training, limitations, and future directions.
Literature
1.
2.
Matsumoto JS, Morris JM, Foley TA, et al. (2015) Three-dimensional physical modeling : applications and experience at Mayo Clinic. Radiographics 35:1989–2006CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Wake N, Rude T, Kang SK, et al. (2017) 3D printed renal cancer models derived from MRI data: application in pre-surgical planning. Abdom Radiol 42(5):1501–1509CrossRef
5.
Choy WJ, Mobbs RJ, Wilcox B, et al. (2017) Reconstruction of thoracic spine using a personalized 3D-printed vertebral body in adolescent with T9 primary bone tumor. World Neurosurg 105:1032.e13–1032.e17CrossRef
6.
Wong KC, Kumta SM, Geel NV, et al. (2015) One-step reconstruction with a 3D-printed, biomechanically evaluated custom implant after complex pelvic tumor resection. Comput Aided Surg 20(1):14–23CrossRefPubMed
7.
Javan R, Herrin D, Tangestanipoor A (2016) Understanding spatially complex segmental and branch anatomy using 3D printing. Acad Radiol 23(9):1183–1189CrossRefPubMed
8.
Aranda JL, Jiménez MF, Rodríguez M, Varela G (2015) Tridimensional titanium-printed custom-made prosthesis for sternocostal reconstruction. Eur J Cardiothoracic Surg 48(4):e92–e94CrossRef
9.
Park E-K, Lim J-Y, Yun I-S, et al. (2016) Cranioplasty enhanced by three-dimensional printing. J Craniofac Surg 27(4):1
10.
Bernhard J-C, Isotani S, Matsugasumi T, et al. (2016) Personalized 3D printed model of kidney and tumor anatomy: a useful tool for patient education. World J Urol 34(3):337–345CrossRefPubMed
11.
Suzuki M, Ogawa Y, Kawano A, et al. (2004) Rapid prototyping of temporal bone for surgical training and medical education. Acta Otolaryngol 124(4):400–402CrossRefPubMed
12.
Adams F, Qiu T, Mark A, et al. (2017) Soft 3D-printed phantom of the human kidney with collecting system. Ann Biomed Eng 45(4):963–972CrossRefPubMed
13.
Gross BC, Erkal JL, Lockwood SY, Chen C, Spence DM (2014) Evaluation of 3D printing and its potential impact on biotechnology and the chemical sciences. Anal Chem 86(7):3240–3253CrossRefPubMed
14.
Konno T, Mashiko T, Oguma H, et al. (2016) Rapid 3-dimensional models of cerebral aneurysm for emergency surgical clipping. No Shinkei Geka 44(8):651–660PubMed
15.
Janusziewicz R, Tumbleston JR, Quintanilla AL, Mecham SJ, Desimone JM (2016) Layerless fabrication with continuous liquid interface production. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113(42):11703–11708CrossRefPubMed
16.
Ripley B, Levin D, Kelil T, et al. (2017) 3D printing from MRI Data: harnessing strengths and minimizing weaknesses. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(3):635–645CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hsu C, Ghaffari M, Alaraj A, et al. (2017) Gap-free segmentation of vascular networks with automatic image processing pipeline. Comput Biol Med 82(January):29–39CrossRefPubMed
18.
Schulz-Wendtland R, Harz M, Meier-Meitinger M, et al. (2017) Semi-automated delineation of breast cancer tumors and subsequent materialization using three-dimensional printing (rapid prototyping). J Surg Oncol 115(3):238–242CrossRefPubMed
19.
George E, Liacouras P, Rybicki FJ, Mitsouras D (2017) Measuring and establishing the accuracy and reproducibility of 3D printed medical models. Radiographics 5:160165
20.
21.
Di Prima M, Coburn J, Hwang D, et al. (2015) Additively manufactured medical products—the FDA perspective. 3D Print Med 2(1):1CrossRef
22.
Zein NN, Hanouneh IA, Bishop PD, et al. (2013) Three-dimensional print of a liver for preoperative planning in living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transplant 19:1304–1310CrossRef
23.
Ikegami T, Maehara Y (2013) Transplantation: 3D printing of the liver in living donor liver transplantation. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 10(12):697–698CrossRefPubMed
24.
Kong X, Nie L, Zhang H, et al. (2016) Do Three-dimensional visualization and three-dimensional printing improve hepatic segment anatomy teaching? A Randomized Controlled Study. J Surg Educ 73(2):264–269CrossRefPubMed
25.
Marro A, Bandukwala T, Mak W (2016) Three-dimensional printing and medical imaging: a review of the methods and applications. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 45(1):2–9CrossRefPubMed
26.
Marconi S, Pugliese L, Del Chiaro M, et al. (2016) An innovative strategy for the identification and 3D reconstruction of pancreatic cancer from CT images. Updates Surg 68(3):273–278CrossRefPubMed
27.
Andolfi C, Plana A, Kania P, Banerjee PP, Small S (2017) Usefulness of three-dimensional modeling in surgical planning, resident training, and patient education. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 27(5):512–515CrossRef
28.
Sayed Aluwee SAZ, Bin Zhou X, Kato H, et al. (2017) Evaluation of pre-surgical models for uterine surgery by use of three-dimensional printing and mold casting. Radiol Phys Technol 10(3):279–285CrossRefPubMed
29.
Baek MH, Kim DY, Kim N, et al. (2016) Incorporating a 3-dimensional printer into the management of early-stage cervical cancer. J Surg Oncol 114(2):150–152CrossRefPubMed
30.
Werner H, Lopes J, Tonni G, Araujo Júnior E (2015) Physical model from 3D ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging scan data reconstruction of lumbosacral myelomeningocele in a fetus with Chiari II malformation. Child’s Nerv Syst 31(4):511–513CrossRef
31.
Westerman ME, Matsumoto JM, Morris JM, Leibovich BC (2016) Three-dimensional printing for renal cancer and surgical planning. Eur Urol Focus 2(6):574–576CrossRefPubMed
32.
Silberstein JL, Maddox MM, Dorsey P, et al. (2014) Physical models of renal malignancies using standard cross-sectional imaging and 3-dimensional printers: a pilot study. Urology 84(2):268–272CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zhang Y, Ge H, Li N, et al. (2016) Evaluation of three-dimensional printing for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy of renal tumors: a preliminary report. World J Urol 34(4):533–537CrossRefPubMed
34.
Wake N, Chandarana H, Huang WC, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB (2016) Application of anatomically accurate, patient-specific 3D printed models from MRI data in urological oncology. Clin Radiol 71(6):610–614CrossRefPubMed
35.
Chen DYT, Uzzo RG (2009) Optimal management of localized renal cell carcinoma: surgery, ablation, or active surveillance. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 7(6):635–642; quiz 643
36.
Sivarajan G, Huang WC (2012) Current practice patterns in the surgical management of renal cancer in the United States. Urol Clin N Am 39(2):149–160, v
37.
Ellison JS, Montgomery JS, Hafez KS, et al. (2013) Association of RENAL nephrometry score with outcomes of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Int J Urol 20(6):564–570CrossRefPubMed
38.
Simhan J, Smaldone MC, Tsai KJ, et al. (2011) Objective measures of renal mass anatomic complexity predict rates of major complications following partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 60(4):724–730CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Zargar H, Allaf ME, Bhayani S, et al. (2015) Trifecta and optimal perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in surgical treatment of small renal masses: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int 116(3):407–414CrossRefPubMed
40.
Atug F, Castle EP, Woods M, Davis R, Thomas R (2006) Robotics in urologic surgery: an evolving new technology. Int J Urol 13(7):857–863CrossRefPubMed
41.
Knoedler M, Feibus AH, Lange A, et al. (2015) Individualized physical 3-dimensional kidney tumor models constructed from 3-dimensional printers result in improved trainee anatomic understanding. Urology 85(6):1257–1261CrossRefPubMed
42.
Maddox MM, Feibus A, Liu J, et al. (2017) 3D-printed soft-tissue physical models of renal malignancies for individualized surgical simulation: a feasibility study. J Robot Surg 12(1):27–33CrossRefPubMed
43.
Tran-Gia J, Schlogl S, Lassmann M (2016) Design and fabrication of kidney phantoms for internal radiation dosimetry using 3D printing technology. J Nucl Med 57(12):1998–2005CrossRefPubMed
44.
Department of Health and Human Services: Center for Disease Control and Prevention and NCI (2014) U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2011 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report
45.
46.
Shin T, Ukimura O, Gill IS (2016) Three-dimensional printed model of prostate anatomy and targeted biopsy-proven index tumor to facilitate nerve-sparing prostatectomy. Eur Urol 69(2):377–379CrossRefPubMed
47.
Reis SP, Majdalany BS, AbuRahma AF, et al. (2017) ACR appropriateness criteria® pulsatile abdominal mass suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Am Coll Radiol 14(5):S258–S265CrossRefPubMed
48.
Powell JT, Sweeting MJ, Ulug P, et al. (2017) Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years. Br J Surg 104(3):166–178CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Reise JA, Sheldon H, Earnshaw J, et al. (2010) Patient preference for surgical method of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: postal survey. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 39(1):55–61CrossRefPubMed
50.
Neequaye SK, Aggarwal R, Van Herzeele I, Darzi A, Cheshire NJ (2007) Endovascular skills training and assessment. J Vasc Surg 46(5):1055–1064CrossRefPubMed
51.
Torres IO, De Luccia N (2016) A simulator for training in endovascular aneurysm repair: the use of three dimensional printers. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 54(2):247–253CrossRef
52.
Tam MD, Latham TR, Lewis M, et al. (2016) A pilot study assessing the impact of 3-D printed models of aortic aneurysms on management decisions in EVAR planning. Vasc Endovasc Surg 50(1):4–9CrossRef
53.
Taylor SM, Mills JL, Fujitani RM (1994) The juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. A more common problem than previously realized? Arch Surg 129(7):734–737CrossRefPubMed
54.
Hu Z, Li Y, Peng R, et al. (2016) Experience with fenestrated endovascular repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms at a single center. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(10):e2683CrossRef
55.
Starnes BW, Tatum B (2012) Early report from an investigator-initiated investigational device exemption clinical trial on physician-modified endovascular grafts. J Vasc Surg 58(2):311–317CrossRef
56.
Taher F, Falkensammer J, McCarte J, et al. (2017) The influence of prototype testing in three-dimensional aortic models on fenestrated endograft design. J Vasc Surg 65(6):1591–1597CrossRefPubMed
57.
58.
Meess KM, Izzo RL, Dryjski ML, Curl RE, et al. (2017) 3D printed abdominal aortic aneurysm phantom for image guided surgical planning with a patient specific fenestrated endovascular graft system. In: Cook TS, Zhang J (eds) Proceedings of SPIE—the International Society for Optical Engineering. SPIE, Bellingham, p 101380P
59.
Koleilat I, Jaeggli M, Ewing JA, et al. (2016) Interobserver variability in physician-modified endograft planning by comparison with a three-dimensional printed aortic model. J Vasc Surg 64(6):1789–1796CrossRefPubMed
60.
Huang J, Li G, Wang W, Wu K, Le T (2016) 3D printing guiding stent graft fenestration: a novel technique for fenestration in endovascular aneurysm repair. Vascular 25(4):442–446CrossRefPubMed
61.
Itagaki MW (2015) Using 3D printed models for planning and guidance during endovascular intervention: a technical advance. Diagn Interv Radiol 21(4):338–341CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Yuan D, Luo H, Yang H, et al. (2017) Precise treatment of aortic aneurysm by three-dimensional printing and simulation before endovascular intervention. Sci Rep. 7(1):795CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Ruiz S, Galarreta D, Antón R, Cazón A, Finol EA (2017) A methodology for developing anisotropic AAA phantoms via additive manufacturing. J Biomech 57:161–166CrossRef
64.
Marconi S, Pugliese L, Botti M, et al. (2017) Value of 3D printing for the comprehension of surgical anatomy. Surg Endosc 31(10):4102–4110CrossRefPubMed
65.
Waran V, Devaraj P, Hari Chandran T, et al. (2012) Three-dimensional anatomical accuracy of cranial models created by rapid prototyping techniques validated using a neuronavigation station. J Clin Neurosci 19(4):574–577CrossRefPubMed
66.
Mafeld S, Nesbitt C, Mccaslin J, et al. (2017) Three-dimensional (3D) printed endovascular simulation models: a feasibility study. Ann Transl Med 5(3):1–8CrossRef
67.
Kolesky DB, Truby RL, Gladman AS, et al. (2014) 3D bioprinting of vascularized, heterogeneous cell-laden tissue constructs. Adv Mater 26(19):3124–3130CrossRefPubMed
68.
69.
Laronda MM, Rutz AL, Xiao S, et al. (2017) A bioprosthetic ovary created using 3D printed microporous scaffolds restores ovarian function in sterilized mice. Nat Commun 8:15261CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Huotilainen E, Jaanimets R, Valášek J, et al. (2014) Inaccuracies in additive manufactured medical skull models caused by the DICOM to STL conversion process. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 42(5):259–265CrossRef
71.
Hoang D, Perrault D, Stevanovic M, Ghiassi A (2016) Surgical applications of three-dimensional printing: a review of the current literature and how to get started. Ann Transl Med 4(23):456CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
72.
Metadata
Title
Principles of three-dimensional printing and clinical applications within the abdomen and pelvis
Authors
Sarah Bastawrous
Nicole Wake
Dmitry Levin
Beth Ripley
Publication date
01-10-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 10/2018
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1554-8

Other articles of this Issue 10/2018

Abdominal Radiology 10/2018 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Germline VHL gene variant in patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease does not predict renal tumor growth

Classics in Abdominal Radiology

The celiac seagull

OriginalPaper

Virtual monoenergetic imaging in rapid kVp-switching dual-energy CT (DECT) of the abdomen: impact on CT texture analysis

OriginalPaper

Computed tomography findings after radiofrequency ablation in locally advanced pancreatic cancer

Classics in Abdominal Radiology

The inlet patch

OriginalPaper

Living donor liver transplantation: post-operative imaging follow-up of right lobe liver donors

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch now

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits