Bernardino M Mendez1, Michael V Chiodo, Parit A Patel. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Loyola University Chicago, Health Sciences Campus, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual surgical planning using three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has improved surgical efficiency and precision. A limitation to this technology is that production of 3D surgical models requires a third-party source, leading to increased costs (up to $4000) and prolonged assembly times (averaging 2-3 weeks). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility, cost, and production time of customized skull models created by an "in-office" 3D printer for craniofacial reconstruction. METHODS: Two patients underwent craniofacial reconstruction with the assistance of "in-office" 3D printing technology. Three-dimensional skull models were created from a bioplastic filament with a 3D printer using computed tomography (CT) image data. The cost and production time for each model were measured. RESULTS: For both patients, a customized 3D surgical model was used preoperatively to plan split calvarial bone grafting and intraoperatively to more efficiently and precisely perform the craniofacial reconstruction. The average cost for surgical model production with the "in-office" 3D printer was $25 (cost of bioplastic materials used to create surgical model) and the average production time was 14 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual surgical planning using "in office" 3D printing is feasible and allows for a more cost-effective and less time consuming method for creating surgical models and guides. By bringing 3D printing to the office setting, we hope to improve intraoperative efficiency, surgical precision, and overall cost for various types of craniofacial and reconstructive surgery.
BACKGROUND: Virtual surgical planning using three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has improved surgical efficiency and precision. A limitation to this technology is that production of 3D surgical models requires a third-party source, leading to increased costs (up to $4000) and prolonged assembly times (averaging 2-3 weeks). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility, cost, and production time of customized skull models created by an "in-office" 3D printer for craniofacial reconstruction. METHODS: Two patients underwent craniofacial reconstruction with the assistance of "in-office" 3D printing technology. Three-dimensional skull models were created from a bioplastic filament with a 3D printer using computed tomography (CT) image data. The cost and production time for each model were measured. RESULTS: For both patients, a customized 3D surgical model was used preoperatively to plan split calvarial bone grafting and intraoperatively to more efficiently and precisely perform the craniofacial reconstruction. The average cost for surgical model production with the "in-office" 3D printer was $25 (cost of bioplastic materials used to create surgical model) and the average production time was 14 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual surgical planning using "in office" 3D printing is feasible and allows for a more cost-effective and less time consuming method for creating surgical models and guides. By bringing 3D printing to the office setting, we hope to improve intraoperative efficiency, surgical precision, and overall cost for various types of craniofacial and reconstructive surgery.
Authors: Tsung-Yen Hsieh; Mena Said; Raj D Dedhia; Mary Roz Timbang; Toby O Steele; Edward Bradley Strong Journal: Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr Date: 2020-05-05
Authors: Tom W Andrew; Joseph Baylan; Paul A Mittermiller; Homan Cheng; Dana N Johns; Michael S B Edwards; Sam H Cheshier; Gerald A Grant; H Peter Lorenz Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2018-12-17
Authors: Samuel R Barber; Kevin Wong; Vivek Kanumuri; Ruwan Kiringoda; Judith Kempfle; Aaron K Remenschneider; Elliott D Kozin; Daniel J Lee Journal: OTO Open Date: 2018-10-29
Authors: Parul Sinha; Gary Skolnick; Kamlesh B Patel; Gregory H Branham; John J Chi Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 4.611