INTRODUCTION

      Three-dimensional printing (3DP) has revolutionized medicine and played a significant role in how physicians approach disease management. Although two-dimensional (2D) imaging [computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound (US), and x-ray (XR)] continue to be important in diagnosis and treatment, these modalities are largely unable to visualize images in three dimensions. Although 3D CT can effectively assess certain conditions (for instance, facial trauma), it lacks the critical components of 3DP such as tactile feedback and real-life spatial sizing. Broken down into 5 steps, 3DP allows for improved preoperative planning and has applications in creating custom surgical tools and prostheses, providing medical and patient education, and bioprinting (Fig. 1).1

      3DP, otherwise known as additive manufacturing, was developed by Charles Hull in the 1980s and allowed for the production of physical objects from digital files.2 Originally mainly focused on production of products for aerospace and automotive industries, the application of 3DP has expanded significantly. Similarly, use of 3DP technologies in medicine has been applied broadly over the last 2 decades. Within the field of plastic surgery, early applications of 3DP included presurgical planning (particularly in craniomaxillofacial surgery), fabrication of biocompatible prostheses, and educational tools for patients.3 However, widespread implementation of 3DP has been limited by several factors, including high cost, inadequate accuracy, lack of readily available materials with appropriate properties for implantation, and minimal financial investment from the 3DP industry in medical applications.2 As material costs decrease and precision increases, in conjunction with recent advances of 3DP technology, there is renewed scientific and clinical interest in 3DP applications in medicine, and in particular plastic surgery. Therefore, plastic surgeons, and consequently their patients, stand to significantly benefit from a working knowledge of 3DP and its potential role in plastic surgery.

      As the utility and application of 3DP grows, physicians ought to understand its attendant capabilities, indications, and limitations. The aims of this article are 3-fold: the first aim includes performance of a literature review to summarize current evidence regarding 3DP technology in plastic surgery. Second, we discuss future directions of this technology within plastic surgery. Finally, we consider unique ethical issues that may arise when employing 3DP technology.

METHODS

      A systematic review of electronically available publications available as of January 1, 2016 was performed. The focus was evaluation of recent advances of this technology as prior publications have highlighted earlier work.2–7 The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Fig. 2).

      Search Criteria An all-language search in 2 databases (PubMed and MEDLINE) and manual inspection of citations in all articles identified from the online search were performed for publications between 2016 and 2020 by 2 independent authors (AQL and CMT). A third review served to adjudicate any disagreement. The following keywords were applied: three-dimensional (3D), three-dimensional printing (3DP), printing, plastic, surgery, applications, prostheses, implants, medical education, bioprinting, and preoperative planning. All returned studies from the database queries utilizing the aforementioned key words and search strategy were reviewed for applicability.

      Exclusion Criteria An initial title/abstract screen was performed to remove results not pertaining to 3DP and plastic surgery. Studies that failed to present novel data were excluded from the literature analysis. This included opinion papers, book chapters, and reviews. Additionally, studies without English or full text access were excluded. Animal studies were not considered.

      Studies that failed to present novel data were excluded from the literature analysis. This included opinion papers, book chapters, and reviews. Additionally, studies without English or full text access were excluded. Animal studies were not considered.

DISCUSSION

Surgical Planning

      With regard to surgical planning, 3DP has assisted in numerous ways as detailed in a previous systematic review.5 Plastic surgeons can utilize 3DP technology, allowing them to visualize defects and measure out the flap necessary to cover any defects or wounds in these reconstructive procedures.5 More recently, 3DP has expanded to offer a way to precisely measure the amount of fat necessary for fat grafting when reconstructing facial defects. Arias et al report a case series of 6 patients with various hemifacial asymmetries who underwent imaging to create preoperative and postoperative masks.8 The authors used the unaffected hemiface to measure the volume of fat needed to fill the defect of the affected side. Although facial fat grafting usually requires significant subjective decision-making by the surgeon, utilization of 3D printed masks to objectively measure volume achieved 80%–100% accuracy.8

      3DP has been helpful in surgical planning in its ability to 3-dimensionally demonstrate the problem, the surgical plan, and proposed surgical outcome to not only the surgeon but also the patients. Several studies have assessed how surgeons and patients view the use of 3DP in surgery.9,10 In a study of 25 patients undergoing facial feminization, La Padula et al found that 3DP was effective and also improved overall satisfaction and patient happiness using the Satisfaction With Life Scale and Subjective Happiness Scale.9 Reported benefits of using a 3D printed model were the ability to plan surgery and to demonstrate to patients the expected postsurgical skeletal changes. Similarly, Guest et al reported that 3D printed models increased confidence, and improved patient understanding and the informed consent process.10 Although surgical planning centers on the surgeon’s ability to achieve a successful outcome, it is also important to consider the patient’s satisfaction and understanding of the procedures they are going through. All studies mentioned in this section are summarized in Table 1.

Intraoperative

      3DP has also been used to assist surgeons intraoperatively. Chae et al employed 3D printed templates to visualize abdominal flap anatomy during breast reconstruction.11 Citing a high rate of fat necrosis (8%–35%), 3DP was used to create a “perforasome template” to improve fat viability. The 3D template facilitated marking of the deep inferior epigastric artery and its perforators, and guided flap harvest.

      In another study, authors used a 3D printed model to guide harvest of a chimeric iliac crest flap in a patient undergoing maxillectomy for maxillary osteomyelitis.12 The guide optimized the surgical approach, resulting in smaller incisions, reduced bleeding, and improved cosmesis. The authors have also applied this successfully for mandible reconstruction. Additionally, Taylor et al successfully employed a home-based 3DP printer to facilitate upper extremity reconstruction with free tissue transfer, by creating a template of the flap, facilitating precise harvesting.13

      3DP has also been used for nipple reconstruction and tattooing following mastectomy. Azouz et al created a 3D printed customizable nipple-areola stencil for office-based tattooing, which is both relatively inexpensive and accurate.14 The device is a multi-layered stencil in which the operator can tattoo using a paint-by-numbers approach while implementing aesthetic principles of shading, coloring, and highlighting.

      Lastly, Choi et al reported using 3DP in cleft palate repair.15 Preoperatively, an intraoral scanner is used to produce 3D models that facilitate palate evaluation. The authors suggest that the model allows for improved visualization of palatal anatomy, surgical planning, and surgery. A further advantage was the enhanced resident education, as the models allowed residents to practice common procedures performed during cleft palate repair. All studies mentioned in this section are summarized in Table 2.

      In the future, the concept of 4-dimensional (4D) modeling may become important. 4D is 3D printing with the factor of time added, allowing the surgeon to visualize how components interact with one another while in motion. Various models are printed out that depict motion of the organ, such as the hand. Although Chae et al has reviewed its use to visualize carpal bones in varying motions such as thumb adduction, no new studies have been found to further inquire its ability to enhance surgical planning.5 Future ideas include determining adequate placement and stability of implants especially in areas with increased motion such as the joints of the hand, ankle,and feet as well as any craniofacial hinge structures. Other ideas include accurately identifying structures that may cause impingement, such as ulnar nerve entrapment or carpal tunnel syndrome, which may lead to novel treatment plans or avoid the possibility of unnecessary and outdated treatment strategies. To quantify and qualify this data, many studies must be conducted to look at clinical outcomes of 4D modeling to better understand its influence on surgeons and patients.

Medical Education

      Many authors have reported on the effectiveness of 3DP in medical education.16–18 A recent study employed 3D printed models in teaching medical students about cleft lip.16 Compared with the control group (ie, no models), students who were given 3D printed models during instruction had an improved knowledge base of anatomy as well as satisfaction with the experience. Moving forward, studies comparing knowledge acquisition using 3D printed models and cadavers will be useful. Although there is no replacement for cadaveric dissection, 3DP adjuncts seem to be of significant value. To emphasize this point, 3DP has evolved to create more realistic training models. Podolsky et al have created a cleft lip surgery simulator that composes different material to represent the bone, muscle, cartilage, subcutaneous tissue, and skin.17 Furthermore, dissection planes were thought out and incorporated into the model, giving a realistic surgical scenario where the Fischer anatomic subunit approximation technique could be used such as in the study. Although the study does not assess improved clinical outcomes or translation to real world scenarios, qualitative feedback by participants were positive and that the model will be a useful training tool.

      In a study of surgical comprehension, Lobb et al found that 3D printed models improve understanding and reduce errors by residents when assisting in craniofacial procedures. Although limited by a small cohort, the article suggests that 3D models may improve understanding by effectively offering a preliminary experience of what to expect before the actual surgery.18 All studies mentioned in this section are summarized in Table 3. Ongoing research will be useful in identifying how 3DP technology can be leveraged to improve medical education. Currently, there is evidence suggesting that 3DP can have a positive effect on medical education, as demonstrated by the aforementioned studies.16–18 For an undergraduate level, more prospective studies will need to be conducted to determine whether 3DP assists in knowledge retention. These future studies can be done by comparing 3D printed models to traditional learning methods such as cadavers alone or as 3DP plus cadaveric instruction compared with cadavers. As for graduate level education, more translational studies need to be conducted to determine whether 3D printed models lead to improved patient outcomes. Some questions that arise are what outcomes are future studies assessing: aesthetic or decreased patient complications? Another challenge is controlling previous resident experience on certain surgeries that can influence outcomes. One possibility is to study plastic surgery interns who may start with a more equal knowledge base than senior residents due to varying experiences during residency.

      Prostheses/Implants The use of 3D modeling for custom implants is well established (Table 1). 5,24–26 Presently, 3DP has been employed to create custom molds in aesthetic surgery. Choi et al created custom negative molds with 3DP technology that has allowed for more personalized medicine.19 The authors’ “3D Carving System” consists of creating a patient-specific mold based off measurements obtained with preoperative CT. Once the mold is produced, curable silicone is injected, forming an implant to be used in rhinoplasty. Comparison of implant specifications to digital measurements demonstrated the accuracy and reproducibility of this method. No significant complications were reported. However, mild variation in the postoperative position of the implant when compared with the preoperative plan was observed, potentially due to inaccurate reflection of tissue elastic properties on CT. Given this, as well as the relatively small sample size, further study is important. A follow-up report by Khan et al demonstrated success with this technology in a patient with a history of prior nasal fracture undergoing secondary rhinoplasty.20 This provided a proof-of-concept for 3DP to be applied in secondary rhinoplasty with a successful outcome.

      In the case of forehead augmentation, Hirohi et al created a 3DP skull construct used to mold a custom forehead implant with temporal inserts to reduce the appearance of temporal wasting.21 Methyl methacrylate was then shaped using the mold to fit the patient’s forehead and was subsequently implanted successfully. Early results have been favorable, but further investigation is needed to assess long-term outcomes, patient satisfaction, and real-time aesthetic assessment.

       Despite the advantages of custom-made implants, many of the materials are non-biodegradable. This theoretically increases the risk of inflammation, infection, and implant malposition.22 To prevent these risks, Han et al used a 3D printed customized biodegradable scaffolding implant for stabilization and reconstruction of complex maxillary defects.22 The scaffold degrades over a 3-year period. However, despite tissue ingrowth into the scaffold, minimal bone formation was noted. As such, further investigations will help elucidate 3DP biodegradable materials that promote bone regeneration.

      3D printed implants have also been used in conjunction with stem cells. Cleft alveolus repair is traditionally performed with autologous bone grafting. Recently, Ahn et al created a 3D printed construct based off the alveolar cleft of a 10-year-old man undergoing alveolar bone grafting.23 The mold was infused with bone marrow stromal cells extracted from the iliac crest before it was implanted and secured into the patient’s alveolar cleft. At 6 months, new bone (bone mineral density between that of cancellous and cortical maxillary alveolar bone) had filled 45% of the defect. This technique aims to reduce complications associated with traditional autologous bone grafting, including donor site morbidity, prolonged operative time, risk of infection, and contour deformities.

      Although 3DP has come a long way since it was first introduced, current technology is still limiting the potential of 3D bioprinting. Many of the materials used in 3DP begin to degrade in 3 weeks; however, when combined with bone marrow stem cells, the degradation process may extend to 6 weeks.27 A future goal is to create a material that degrades just after bony healing has been sufficiently established.

Ethical

      Issues Although innovation is critical to advance medicine, not all innovations are successful in improving patient care. This gives rise to the ethical dilemma of how to appropriately implement innovative strategies and how to monitor them. With respect to 3DP, there are many potential advantages to its use, including preoperative planning and individualized medicine, but this must be weighed against the ethical concerns regarding cost and availability (ie, justice).28,29 Additionally, surgeons and institutions must be cognizant of conflicts of interest that can arise with development and implementation of novel technology. Indeed, there is significant potential for academic and financial gain.30

      An additional important concern is ensuring appropriate informed consent by the patient. Patients must be advised of expected outcomes and risks but that they may not fully be understood or known when using new technology.28–30 In particular to 3D printed devices made specifically for a patient, the attendant risks and benefits to the patient may be even more elusive.

      Ethical recommendations with respect to 3DP include discussion with the patient regarding the newness of the devices, frequent outcome and safety review, and use of a national database for outcome reporting when feasible. Ongoing research is key to further understanding the benefits and potential pitfalls of this technology. Finally, surgeons must be aware of the potential for bias and conflicts of interest.28–30 Innovation has revolutionized and improved patient care. It should be supported but frequently and critically appraised.

CONCLUSIONS

      3DP has advanced the field of medicine significantly since its inception. In plastic surgery, it has proved to be a valuable tool preoperatively, intraoperatively, for medical education, and for improved patient satisfaction. Patient-specific constructs have facilitated delivery of safe and effective care, and have even allowed for increased happiness and understanding of surgery among patients. Although much work remains to better understand the indications, limitations, and outcomes associated with 3DP, early success in many areas within plastic surgery highlights its broad potential to improve patient care.

Chad M. Teven, MD Mayo Clinic 5779 E. Mayo Blvd. Phoenix, AZ 85054 E-mail: 该Email地址已收到反垃圾邮件插件保护。要显示它您需要在浏览器中启用JavaScript。

REFERENCES

1. Aimar A, Palermo A, Innocenti B. The role of 3D printing in medical applications: A state of the art. J Healthc Eng. 2019;2019:5340616.

2. Kamali P, Dean D, Skoracki R, et al. The current role of threedimensional printing in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:1045–1055.

3. Bauermeister AJ, Zuriarrain A, Newman MI. Three-dimensional printing in plastic and reconstructive surgery: A systematic review. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;77:569–576.

4. Schwam ZG, Chang MT, Barnes MA, et al. Applications of 3-dimensional printing in facial plastic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74:427–428.

5. Chae MP, Rozen WM, McMenamin PG, et al. Emerging applications of bedside 3D printing in plastic surgery. Front Surg. 2015;2:2

6. Li Y, Yang X, Li D. The application of three-dimensional surface imaging system in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;77(suppl 1):S76–S83.

7. Choi JW, Kim N. Clinical application of three-dimensional printing technology in craniofacial plastic surgery. Arch Plast Surg. 2015;42:267–277.

8. Arias E, Huang YH, Zhao L, et al. Virtual surgical planning and three-dimensional printed guide for soft tissue correction in facial asymmetry. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30:846–850.

9. La Padula S, Hersant B, Chatel H, et al. One-step facial feminization surgery: The importance of a custom-made preoperative planning and patient satisfaction assessment. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72:1694–1699. 

10. Guest W, Forbes D, Schlosser C, et al. Imaging-based 3-dimensional printing for improved maxillofacial presurgical planning: A single center case series. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2019;70:74–82.

11. Chae MP, Hunter-Smith DJ, Rostek M, et al. Enhanced preoperative deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap planning with a 3D-printed perforasome template: Technique and case report. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1644.

12. Matias M, Zenha H, Costa H. Three-dimensional printing: Custom-made implants for craniomaxillofacial reconstructive surgery. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2017;10:89–98.

13. Taylor EM, Iorio ML. Surgeon-based 3D printing for microvascular bone flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2017;33:441–445.

14. Azouz S, Swanson M, Omarkhil M, et al. A nipple-areola stencil for three-dimensional tattooing: Nipple by number. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:38–42.

15. Choi YS, Shin HS. Preoperative planning and simulation in patients with cleft palate using intraoral three-dimensional scanning and printing. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30:2245–2248.

16. AlAli AB, Griffin MF, Calonge WM, et al. Evaluating the use of cleft lip and palate 3D-printed models as a teaching aid. J Surg Educ. 2018;75:200–208.

17. Podolsky DJ, Wong Riff KW, Drake JM, et al. A high fidelity cleft lip simulator. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1871.

18. Lobb DC, Cottler P, Dart D, et al. The use of patient-specific three-dimensional printed surgical models enhances plastic surgery resident education in craniofacial surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30:339–341.

19. Choi YD, Kim Y, Park E. Patient-specific augmentation rhinoplasty using a three-dimensional simulation program and threedimensional printing. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:988–998.

20. Khan G, Choi YS, Park ES, et al. The application of three-dimensional simulation program and three-dimensional printing in secondary rhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29:e774–e777.

21. Hirohi T, Nagai K, Ng D, et al. Integrated forehead and temporal augmentation using 3D printing-assisted methyl methacrylate implants. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38:1157–1168.

22. Han HH, Shim JH, Lee H, et al. Reconstruction of complex maxillary defects using patient-specific 3D-printed biodegradable scaffolds. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1975.

23. Ahn G, Lee J, Yun W, et al. Cleft alveolus reconstruction using a three-dimensional printed bioresorbable scaffold with human bone marrow cells. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29:1880–1883.

24. Parthasarathy J. 3D modeling, custom implants and its future perspectives in craniofacial surgery. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2014;4:9–18.

25. Zenha H, Barroso ML, Costa H. Advanced 3-D biomodelling technology for complex mandibular reconstruction. In: Danilla S, ed. Selected Topics in Plastic Reconstructive Surgery. London, UK: InTech; 2012:217–232.

26. Oliveira M, Hussain NS, Dias AG, et al. 3-D biomodelling technology for maxillofacial reconstruction. Mater Sci Eng C. 2008;28:1347–1351.

27. Tellisi N, Ashammakhi NA, Billi F, et al. Three dimensional printed bone implants in the clinic. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29:2363–2367.

28. Angelos P. Ethics and surgical innovation: Challenges to the professionalism of surgeons. Int J Surg. 2013;11(suppl 1):S2–S5.

29. Geiger JD, Hirschl RB. Innovation in surgical technology and techniques: Challenges and ethical issues. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2015;24:115–121.

30. Miller ME, Siegler M, Angelos P. Ethical issues in surgical innovation. World J Surg. 2014;38:1638–164

This article is excerpted from the Wolters Kluwer Health by Wound World.