Advanced Strategies for the Fabrication of Multi-Material Anatomical Models of Complex Pediatric Oncologic Cases

Overview

Journal Bioengineering (Basel)

Date 2024 Jan 22

PMID 38247908

Authors

Arnau Valls-Esteve

Aitor Tejo-Otero

Nuria Adell-Gomez

Pamela Lustig-Gainza

Felip Fenollosa-Artes

Irene Buj-Corral

Josep Rubio-Palau

Josep Munuera

Lucas Krauel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The printing and manufacturing of anatomical 3D models has gained popularity in complex surgical cases for surgical planning, simulation and training, the evaluation of anatomical relations, medical device testing and patient-professional communication. 3D models provide the haptic feedback that Virtual or Augmented Reality (VR/AR) cannot provide. However, there are many technologies and strategies for the production of 3D models. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to show and compare eight different strategies for the manufacture of surgical planning and training prototypes. The eight strategies for creating complex abdominal oncological anatomical models, based on eight common pediatric oncological cases, were developed using four common technologies (stereolithography (SLA), selectie laser sinterning (SLS), fused filament fabrication (FFF) and material jetting (MJ)) along with indirect and hybrid 3D printing methods. Nine materials were selected for their properties, with the final models assessed for application suitability, production time, viscoelastic mechanical properties (shore hardness and elastic modulus) and cost. The manufacturing and post-processing of each strategy is assessed, with times ranging from 12 h (FFF) to 61 h (hybridization of FFF and SLS), as labor times differ significantly. Cost per model variation is also significant, ranging from EUR 80 (FFF) to EUR 600 (MJ). The main limitation is the mimicry of physiological properties. Viscoelastic properties and the combination of materials, colors and textures are also substantially different according to the strategy and the intended use. It was concluded that MJ is the best overall option, although its use in hospitals is limited due to its cost. Consequently, indirect 3D printing could be a solid and cheaper alternative.

References

Parthasarathy J, Krishnamurthy R, Ostendorf A, Shinoka T, Krishnamurthy R . 3D printing with MRI in pediatric applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019; 51(6):1641-1658. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26870. View

Nguyen P, Stanislaus I, McGahon C, Pattabathula K, Bryant S, Pinto N . Quality assurance in 3D-printing: A dimensional accuracy study of patient-specific 3D-printed vascular anatomical models. Front Med Technol. 2023; 5:1097850. PMC: 9941637. DOI: 10.3389/fmedt.2023.1097850. View

Wang F, Metzner F, Osterhoff G, Zheng L, Schleifenbaum S . The role of bone marrow on the mechanical properties of trabecular bone: a systematic review. Biomed Eng Online. 2022; 21(1):80. PMC: 9686043. DOI: 10.1186/s12938-022-01051-1. View

Youn J, Park H, Ko D, Yang H, Kim H, Yoon H . Application of additional three-dimensional materials for education in pediatric anatomy. Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):9973. PMC: 10282057. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-36912-9. View

Soon D, Chae M, Pilgrim C, Rozen W, Spychal R, Hunter-Smith D . 3D haptic modelling for preoperative planning of hepatic resection: A systematic review. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2016; 10:1-7. PMC: 4959920. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2016.07.002. View

Valls-Esteve A, Lustig-Gainza P, Adell-Gomez N, Tejo-Otero A, Engli-Rueda M, Julian-Alvarez E . A state-of-the-art guide about the effects of sterilization processes on 3D-printed materials for surgical planning and medical applications: A comparative study. Int J Bioprint. 2023; 9(5):756. PMC: 10406103. DOI: 10.18063/ijb.756. View

Keaveny T, Hayes W . A 20-year perspective on the mechanical properties of trabecular bone. J Biomech Eng. 1993; 115(4B):534-42. DOI: 10.1115/1.2895536. View

Saadi M, Maguire A, Pottackal N, Thakur M, Ikram M, Hart A . Direct Ink Writing: A 3D Printing Technology for Diverse Materials. Adv Mater. 2022; 34(28):e2108855. DOI: 10.1002/adma.202108855. View

Lefevre E, Farlay D, Bala Y, Subtil F, Wolfram U, Rizzo S . Compositional and mechanical properties of growing cortical bone tissue: a study of the human fibula. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):17629. PMC: 6879611. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-54016-1. View

10.

Tejo-Otero A, Buj-Corral I, Fenollosa-Artes F . 3D Printing in Medicine for Preoperative Surgical Planning: A Review. Ann Biomed Eng. 2019; 48(2):536-555. DOI: 10.1007/s10439-019-02411-0. View

11.

Yoon S, Schiffer A, Jang I, Lee S, Kim T . Predictions of the elastic modulus of trabecular bone in the femoral head and the intertrochanter: a solitary wave-based approach. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2021; 20(5):1733-1749. DOI: 10.1007/s10237-021-01473-1. View

12.

Christou C, Vasileiadou S, Sotiroudis G, Tsoulfas G . Three-Dimensional Printing and Bioprinting in Renal Transplantation and Regenerative Medicine: Current Perspectives. J Clin Med. 2023; 12(20). PMC: 10607284. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12206520. View

13.

van de Belt T, Nijmeijer H, Grim D, Engelen L, Vreeken R, van Gelder M . Patient-Specific Actual-Size Three-Dimensional Printed Models for Patient Education in Glioma Treatment: First Experiences. World Neurosurg. 2018; 117:e99-e105. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.190. View

14.

Kurtz T, Woitrain T, Godio-Raboutet Y, Ribeiro F, Arnoux P, Tailhan J . Method for Evaluating Cortical Bone Young's Modulus: Numerical Twin Reconstruction, Finite Element Calculation, and Microstructure Analysis. J Biomech Eng. 2023; 145(11). DOI: 10.1115/1.4063100. View

15.

Melnyk R, Ezzat B, Belfast E, Saba P, Farooq S, Campbell T . Mechanical and functional validation of a perfused, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy simulation platform using a combination of 3D printing and hydrogel casting. World J Urol. 2019; 38(7):1631-1641. PMC: 7730938. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02989-z. View

16.

Arm R, Shahidi A, Clarke C, Alabraba E . Synthesis and characterisation of a cancerous liver for presurgical planning and training applications. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2022; 9(1). PMC: 9301799. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2022-000909. View

17.

Valls-Esteve A, Tejo-Otero A, Lustig-Gainza P, Buj-Corral I, Fenollosa-Artes F, Rubio-Palau J . Patient-Specific 3D Printed Soft Models for Liver Surgical Planning and Hands-On Training. Gels. 2023; 9(4). PMC: 10138006. DOI: 10.3390/gels9040339. View

18.

Schiavina R, Bianchi L, Lodi S, Cercenelli L, Chessa F, Bortolani B . Real-time Augmented Reality Three-dimensional Guided Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Preliminary Experience and Evaluation of the Impact on Surgical Planning. Eur Urol Focus. 2020; 7(6):1260-1267. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.08.004. View

19.

Tejo-Otero A, Fenollosa-Artes F, Achaerandio I, Rey-Vinolas S, Buj-Corral I, Mateos-Timoneda M . Soft-Tissue-Mimicking Using Hydrogels for the Development of Phantoms. Gels. 2022; 8(1). PMC: 8774477. DOI: 10.3390/gels8010040. View

20.

Mirkhalaf M, Men Y, Wang R, No Y, Zreiqat H . Personalized 3D printed bone scaffolds: A review. Acta Biomater. 2022; 156:110-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.04.014. View