David H Ballard1, Patrick Mills2, Richard Duszak3, Jeffery A Weisman4, Frank J Rybicki5, Pamela K Woodard6. 1. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S. Kingshighway Blvd, Campus Box 8131, St. Louis, MO 63110. Electronic address: davidballard@wustl.edu. 2. Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana. 3. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. University of Illinois at Chicago Occupational Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. 6. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S. Kingshighway Blvd, Campus Box 8131, St. Louis, MO 63110.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional (3D) printed anatomic models and surgical guides have been shown to reduce operative time. The purpose of this study was to generate an economic analysis of the cost-saving potential of 3D printed anatomic models and surgical guides in orthopedic and maxillofacial surgical applications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A targeted literature search identified operating room cost-per-minute and studies that quantified time saved using 3D printed constructs. Studies that reported operative time differences due to 3D printed anatomic models or surgical guides were reviewed and cataloged. A mean of $62 per operating room minute (range of $22-$133 per minute) was used as the reference standard for operating room time cost. Different financial scenarios were modeled with the provided cost-per-minute of operating room time (using high, mean, and low values) and mean time saved using 3D printed constructs. RESULTS: Seven studies using 3D printed anatomic models in surgical care demonstrated a mean 62 minutes ($3720/case saved from reduced time) of time saved, and 25 studies of 3D printed surgical guides demonstrated a mean 23 minutes time saved ($1488/case saved from reduced time). An estimated 63 models or guides per year (or 1.2/week) were predicted to be the minimum number to breakeven and account for annual fixed costs. CONCLUSION: Based on the literature-based financial analyses, medical 3D printing appears to reduce operating room costs secondary to shortening procedure times. While resource-intensive, 3D printed constructs used in patients' operative care provides considerable downstream value to health systems.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional (3D) printed anatomic models and surgical guides have been shown to reduce operative time. The purpose of this study was to generate an economic analysis of the cost-saving potential of 3D printed anatomic models and surgical guides in orthopedic and maxillofacial surgical applications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A targeted literature search identified operating room cost-per-minute and studies that quantified time saved using 3D printed constructs. Studies that reported operative time differences due to 3D printed anatomic models or surgical guides were reviewed and cataloged. A mean of $62 per operating room minute (range of $22-$133 per minute) was used as the reference standard for operating room time cost. Different financial scenarios were modeled with the provided cost-per-minute of operating room time (using high, mean, and low values) and mean time saved using 3D printed constructs. RESULTS: Seven studies using 3D printed anatomic models in surgical care demonstrated a mean 62 minutes ($3720/case saved from reduced time) of time saved, and 25 studies of 3D printed surgical guides demonstrated a mean 23 minutes time saved ($1488/case saved from reduced time). An estimated 63 models or guides per year (or 1.2/week) were predicted to be the minimum number to breakeven and account for annual fixed costs. CONCLUSION: Based on the literature-based financial analyses, medical 3D printing appears to reduce operating room costs secondary to shortening procedure times. While resource-intensive, 3D printed constructs used in patients' operative care provides considerable downstream value to health systems.
Authors: Tilman Pfitzner; Matthew P Abdel; Philipp von Roth; Carsten Perka; Hagen Hommel Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: B Boonen; M G M Schotanus; B Kerens; W van der Weegen; R A M van Drumpt; N P Kort Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2013-08-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Maree T Izatt; Paul L P J Thorpe; Robert G Thompson; Paul S D'Urso; Clayton J Adam; John W S Earwaker; Robert D Labrom; Geoffrey N Askin Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2007-02-14 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: David H Ballard; Udayabhanu Jammalamadaka; Kathleen W Meacham; Mark J Hoegger; Broc A Burke; Jason A Morris; Alexander R Scott; Zachary O'Connor; Connie Gan; Jesse Hu; Karthik Tappa; Richard L Wahl; Pamela K Woodard Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Cory Lebowitz; Joseph Massaglia; Christopher Hoffman; Ludovico Lucenti; Sachin Dheer; Michael Rivlin; Pedro K Beredjiklian Journal: Arch Bone Jt Surg Date: 2021-07
Authors: Michelle Ho; Beau Y Park; Norman G Rosenblum; Mona Al Mukaddam; Frederick S Kaplan; Victor Kucherov; Scott G Hubosky; Gregory Kane; Vishal Desai; Michael R Kramer; Bon S Ku; Eric S Schwenk; Jaime L Baratta; Deepti Harshavardhana; Zvi Grunwald Journal: Am J Case Rep Date: 2021-06-10