Low Temperature Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide Sterilization of 3D Printed Devices

Overview

Journal 3D Print Med

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2024 Feb 28

PMID 38416324

Authors

Randal Eveland

Kathleen Antloga

Ashley Meyer

Lori Tuscano

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Low temperature vaporized hydrogen peroxide sterilization (VH2O2) is used in hospitals today to sterilize reusable medical devices. VH2O2 sterilized 3D printed materials were evaluated for sterilization, biocompatibility and material compatibility.

Materials & Methods: Test articles were printed at Formlabs with BioMed Clear™ and BioMed Amber™, and at Stratasys with MED610™, MED615™ and MED620™. Sterilization, biocompatibility and material compatibility studies with 3D printed materials were conducted after VH2O2 sterilization in V-PRO™ Sterilizers. The overkill method was used to evaluate sterilization in a ½ cycle. Biocompatibility testing evaluated the processed materials as limited contact (< 24-hours) surface or externally communicating devices. Material compatibility after VH2O2 sterilization (material strength and dimensionality) was evaluated via ASTM methods and dimensional analysis.

Results: 3D printed devices, within a specific design window, were sterile after VH2O2 ½ cycles. After multiple cycle exposure, the materials were not cytotoxic, not sensitizing, not an irritant, not a systemic toxin, not pyrogenic and were hemo-compatible. Material compatibility via ASTM testing and dimensionality evaluations did not indicate any significant changes to the 3D printed materials after VH2O2 sterilization.

Conclusion: Low temperature vaporized hydrogen peroxide sterilization is demonstrated as a suitable method to sterilize 3D printed devices. The results are a subset of the data used in a regulatory submission with the US FDA to support claims for sterilization of 3D printed devices with specified materials, printers, and device design .

Citing Articles

Advancing Surgical Arrhythmia Ablation: Novel Insights on 3D Printing Applications and Two Biocompatible Materials.

Monaco C, Kronenberger R, Talevi G, Pannone L, Cappello I, Candelari M Biomedicines. 2024; 12(4).

PMID: 38672223 PMC: 11048352. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12040869.

References

George E, Liacouras P, Rybicki F, Mitsouras D . Measuring and Establishing the Accuracy and Reproducibility of 3D Printed Medical Models. Radiographics. 2017; 37(5):1424-1450. PMC: 5621728. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2017160165. View

Shea G, Wu K, Li I, Leung M, Ko A, Tse L . A review of the manufacturing process and infection rate of 3D-printed models and guides sterilized by hydrogen peroxide plasma and utilized intra-operatively. 3D Print Med. 2020; 6(1):7. PMC: 7106677. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-020-00061-w. View

Horst A, McDonald F, Hutmacher D . A clarion call for understanding regulatory processes for additive manufacturing in the health sector. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019; 16(5):405-412. DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2019.1609353. View

Shaheen E, Alhelwani A, Van de Casteele E, Politis C, Jacobs R . Evaluation of Dimensional Changes of 3D Printed Models After Sterilization: A Pilot Study. Open Dent J. 2018; 12:72-79. PMC: 5815034. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601812010072. View

Ricles L, Coburn J, Di Prima M, Oh S . Regulating 3D-printed medical products. Sci Transl Med. 2018; 10(461). DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aan6521. View

Christensen A, Rybicki F . Maintaining safety and efficacy for 3D printing in medicine. 3D Print Med. 2018; 3(1):1. PMC: 6036763. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-016-0009-5. View

Mitsouras D, Liacouras P, Wake N, Rybicki F . Update: Medical 3D Printing for the Radiologist. Radiographics. 2020; 40(4):E21-E23. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2020190217. View

Leggat P, Smith D, Kedjarune U . Surgical applications of methyl methacrylate: a review of toxicity. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2009; 64(3):207-12. DOI: 10.1080/19338240903241291. View

Matsumoto J, Morris J, Foley T, Williamson E, Leng S, McGee K . Three-dimensional Physical Modeling: Applications and Experience at Mayo Clinic. Radiographics. 2015; 35(7):1989-2006. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2015140260. View

10.

Rybicki F . The impact of regulation, reimbursement, and research on the value of 3D printing and other 3D procedures in medicine. 3D Print Med. 2022; 8(1):6. PMC: 8805272. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-022-00132-0. View

11.

Beitler B, Abraham P, Glennon A, Tommasini S, Lattanza L, Morris J . Interpretation of regulatory factors for 3D printing at hospitals and medical centers, or at the point of care. 3D Print Med. 2022; 8(1):7. PMC: 8809025. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-022-00134-y. View

12.

Mertz L . Dream it, design it, print it in 3-D: what can 3-D printing do for you?. IEEE Pulse. 2013; 4(6):15-21. DOI: 10.1109/MPUL.2013.2279616. View

13.

Mulder C, Vespasiano V, Becking A, Dubois L, Karssemakers L, Milstein D . Effects of sterilization on the mechanical properties of poly(methyl methacrylate) based personalized medical devices. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018; 81:168-172. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.01.033. View

14.

Pettersson A, Ballardini R, Mimler M, Li P, Salmi M, Minssen T . Legal issues and underexplored data protection in medical 3D printing: A scoping review. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023; 11:1102780. PMC: 10009255. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1102780. View

15.

Torok G, Gombocz P, Bognar E, Nagy P, Dinya E, Kispelyi B . Effects of disinfection and sterilization on the dimensional changes and mechanical properties of 3D printed surgical guides for implant therapy - pilot study. BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20(1):19. PMC: 6979289. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-1005-0. View

16.

Carl A, Hochmann D . Comparison of the regulatory requirements for custom-made medical devices using 3D printing in Europe, the United States, and Australia. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2022; 67(2):61-69. DOI: 10.1515/bmt-2021-0266. View

17.

Toro M, Cardona A, Restrepo D, Buitrago L . Does vaporized hydrogen peroxide sterilization affect the geometrical properties of anatomic models and guides 3D printed from computed tomography images?. 3D Print Med. 2021; 7(1):29. PMC: 8439001. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-021-00120-w. View

18.

Chepelev L, Wake N, Ryan J, Althobaity W, Gupta A, Arribas E . Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 3D printing Special Interest Group (SIG): guidelines for medical 3D printing and appropriateness for clinical scenarios. 3D Print Med. 2019; 4(1):11. PMC: 6251945. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-018-0030-y. View

19.

Marei H, Alshaia A, Alarifi S, Almasoud N, Abdelhady A . Effect of Steam Heat Sterilization on the Accuracy of 3D Printed Surgical Guides. Implant Dent. 2019; 28(4):372-377. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000908. View

20.

Neches R, Flynn K, Zaman L, Tung E, Pudlo N . On the intrinsic sterility of 3D printing. PeerJ. 2016; 4:e2661. PMC: 5136128. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2661. View