Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Three-dimensional printing is an innovative technology that has gained prominence in recent years due to its attractive features such as affordability, efficiency, and quick production. The technology is used to produce a three-dimensional model by depositing materials in layers using specific printers. In the medical field, it has been increasingly used in various specialties, including neurosurgery, cardiology, and orthopedics, most commonly for the pre-planning of complex surgeries. In addition, it has been applied in therapeutic treatments, patient education, and training wof medical professionals. In the field of obstetrics and gynecology, there is a limited number of studies in which three-dimensional printed models were applied. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of three-dimensional printing applications in the medical field, highlighting the few reported applications in obstetrics and gynecology. We also review all relevant studies and discuss the current challenges and limitations of adopting the technology in routine clinical practice. The technology has the potential to expand for wider applications related to women’s health, including patient counseling, surgical training, and medical education.

Keywords

Three-dimensional models three-dimensional printing patient counseling patient education women’s health

Introduction

Three-dimensional (3D) printing—also known as additive manufacturing—has emerged as a revolutionary technology that has received attention over recent years. In general, it is a process in which materials are deposited meticulously in a layer-by-layer fashion by a specialized printer to produce a 3D object from an original 3D digital image.^1,2 In the medical field, the 3D digital image can be obtained from the patient’s 3D ultrasound images, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computerized tomography (CT) scans. This process allows the printing of detailed anatomical structures of body organs into an identical 3D model.³

The 3D printing technology has been widely applied in various biomedical fields (Figure 1).⁴ Several medical specialties utilize 3D printing technologies, in particular neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, and pediatric surgery.^5
–7 Recently, 3D printing technology has been also utilized to provide novel solutions for several medico-technological challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁸

Figure 1.

The applications of 3D printing technology in the medical field: Educational; Presurgical planning; and Implants and Prosthetics.

The ability of the 3D printing technology to provide patient-tailored anatomical models with such a degree of feasibility can be of significant clinical impact.^11,12 For example, improving patients’ understanding of their body anatomy in both health and disease can provide a powerful tool in health education. Likewise, access of health professionals to such models is seen as a novel tool to enhance patient counseling and enforce patients in their decision-making process and their ability to give well-informed consent about their treatment options.^13,14 Relative to the traditional manufacturing methods of anatomical models, 3D printing technology offers multiple advantages such as accessibility, cost-effectiveness, rapid production, diversity of model material, and increasing feasibility.¹⁵

While 3D printing technology has made significant progress in several medical specialties, its application in the field of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) is relatively limited.¹⁶ The factors behind this limitation are not well understood from the current evidence; however, we believe this might be due to the fact that OBGYN has not received the same level of attention in terms of 3D printing research and development, leading to fewer established applications. The sensitive nature of gynecologic disorders and the vulnerability of pregnant women may contribute to such research limitations.¹⁷ Furthermore, although MRI scans could potentially be a useful add-on diagnostic method, ultrasound remains the imaging modality of choice in the OBGYN field.¹⁸ Hence we believe this could be another reason for the lack of use of 3D printed models in OBGYN, as an ultrasound alone does not suffice for use in 3D printing and may have artifacts, and an MRI would only be obtained if the result of the ultrasound is inconclusive.¹⁸

In the field of OBGYN, this technology remains uncommon and minimally utilized in comparison to other medical specialties. This is due to the complexity of dynamic structures such as the uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and placenta, which undergo significant changes during pregnancy and menstrual cycles. In addition, the variability in patient anatomy poses challenges in creating standardized models. Furthermore, while ultrasound plays a crucial role in obstetrics, its two-dimensional (2D) images lack the necessary depth and spatial data for accurate 3D printing.

In this review, we provide an overview of 3D printing applications in the medical field highlighting the current applications in obstetrics and gynecology, including therapeutics, patient counseling, and educational training. We also discuss the limitations and the potential future applications of 3D printing technology in the field of women’s health.

Overview of basic technical aspects of 3D printing

3D printing is also known as additive manufacturing, where successive layers of materials are printed on top of each other, in contrast to removing material through traditional methods such as milling.¹⁹ It is a process to create 3D objects from digital files. Several methods can be used to create digital files, such as 3D modeling and 3D scanning. For patient-oriented 3D-printing applications, creating an accurate medical model is a crucial step. The initial model is created using a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) file from a radiological image.²⁰ Segmentation is then utilized to separate the required anatomical structure and avoid unwanted overlapping during the 3D printing process. It is a must to segment to extract the points used to create a contour of the structure to be printed.²¹ The model is refined using 3D modeling software to remove unwanted details and reduce noise. This process ensures that the model can be printed correctly. The digital file is then exported as a stereolithography (STL) object (or any other compatible file format for 3D printing); this format describes only the surface geometry of a 3D object without representing color, texture, or other common model attributes.²² The STL file is then uploaded to the 3D printer slicer, where the slicer converts the digital model to a set of G-code commands, which are then uploaded to the 3D printer and are used to control the various function of the 3D printer.²³ After printing the required object, the model is sanded using various grits of sandpaper to ensure a smooth finish. The model is then sprayed with several layers of primer and painted to achieve a durable and uniform finish^22,24 (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

General overview of 3D printing workflow with segmentation of MRI using images of a multi-fibroid uterus as an example.

Several types of 3D printing techniques are available; Alexander et al. have reviewed the most updated ISO/ASTM guidelines for terminology used to describe 3D printing in biomedical applications. Several types of 3D printing technologies have been adopted in the medical field. The six most common types implemented by the ISO/ASTM standard for medical applications are discussed below and summarized in Table 1.⁵³

Table 1.

An overview of the 3D printing technologies currently used in the medical field.^25
–28

3D printing technologies	Medical field applications	Materials	Advantages	Disadvantages
Binder jetting²⁹	Colored anatomical models.³⁰	• Ceramics.• Polymers.• Stainless steel.	• Fast printing.• Wide material range.	• High startup cost.• Lacks strength.• Slow post-processing.
Material jetting^31,32,33	Medical models (e.g. mandible^34,35), dental materials.³⁶	• Plastics.• Polymers.	• Mass manufacturing.• Multiple colors.• Sustainable.	• High material cost.• High startup cost.• Limited materials.• Requires support.• UV toxicity.
Material extrusion³⁷	Experimental setups in research laboratories.³⁷ Tissue engineering and organ printing.³⁸ Medical models.³⁴ Complex drug dosage delivery.³⁹	• Plastics.• Polymers.	• Fast printing.• Low material cost.• Low startup cost.• Sustainable.• User friendly.• Wide material range.	• Low quality.• Requires support.
Powder bed fusion⁴⁰	Orthopedic prostheses.⁴¹ Craniomaxillofacial implants.⁴² Cranial reconstructions.⁴³ Presurgical planning and patient counseling for kidney tumors.⁴⁴	• Metals.• Powder-based materials.• Polymers.	• High quality.• Low cost.• User friendly.• Wide material range.	• High energy consumption.• Powder grain size difficulties.• Slow printing.
Sheet lamination⁴⁵	Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering.⁴⁶ Head and neck phantoms.⁴⁷	• Metals.• Polymers.• Plastics.	• Fast printing.• Low material cost.• Reduced tooling time.• Simple material handling.• Suitable for large structures.	• Limited materials.• Slow post-processing.
Vat photopolymerization⁴⁸	Modified release tablets.^49,50 Tissue engineering multi-material bioactive scaffolds.⁵¹ Intra-vesical drug delivery device.⁵²	• Photopolymer resin.	• Low startup cost.• Very high quality.	• High material cost.• Low strength.• Requires PPE.• Slow post-processing.• Slow printing.• UV toxicity.

UV: ultraviolet; PPE: personal protective equipment.

Binder jetting is a 3D printing technique that first lays a thin layer of powdered material across a build platform. Then, a liquid binding agent or glue is deposited in specific locations using a printhead. Once the binder contacts the powdered material, it fuses the various layers to create the required object.⁵⁴ Similar technology to binder jetting is material jetting, which deposits a photopolymer material stored in air-excluding tanks instead of the binding agent; the photopolymer is then cured using ultraviolet (UV) light to harden the photopolymer.⁵⁵

Moreover, material extrusion (ME) is an affordable additive manufacturing technique relative to the other available technologies. Furthermore, ME is known for rapidly producing prototypes by dispensing material from a filament spool through a nozzle or orifice. The nozzle melts the filament before dispensing it at the specified location, where it cools and bonds with the filament from the layer below.⁵⁶ Powder bed fusion (PBF) utilizes a heat source, typically a laser, to fuse powdered particles in precise locations either by total melting, which results in selective laser melting (SLM), or partial melting, which results in selective laser sintering (SLS).⁵⁷

Sheet lamination is another 3D printing technology that utilizes sheets of material, which are layered on top of each other and bonded together using an adhesive. The sheets are then cut into the required shape using a carbon dioxide laser or a computer numerical control (CNC) machine.⁵⁸ Finally, vat photopolymerization uses a vat filled with a liquid photopolymer resin; the resin is then cured on a build plate using a screen that partially blocks a UV light, causing the exposed resin layer to harden. After the first layer is cured, the build plate is lowered, and a new layer of liquid resin covers the cured layer. The above process is repeated until the entire object is created.⁵⁹

Other methods of 3D printing include laser scanning and photogrammetry. Laser scanning involves using a laser scanner to capture the shape and contour of an object with high precision to generate 3D models for different medical applications. Photogrammetry relies on capturing multiple images of an object from different angles, followed by using specialized software to analyze the images and construct a 3D model for printing.

After printing the required object, the model is sanded using various grits of sandpaper to ensure a smooth finish. The model is then sprayed with several layers of primer and painted to achieve a durable and uniform finish.²⁴ Table 2 summarizes the most common materials used in the various 3D printing technologies and their properties.²¹

Table 2.

Most common materials used in the various 3D printing technologies and their properties.

Material	Properties
Polylactic acid (PLA)	• Biodegradable.• Easy to print.• Low cost.• Low melting point.• Flows slowly under pressure.• Rigid.• Weak.
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)	• Semi-rigid.• More expensive than PLA.• Stands high temperatures.• Translucent.
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)	• Difficult to print.• Durable.• Low cost.• Rigid.• Shrinks.• Stands high temperatures.
Nylon	• Difficult to print.• Durable.• Semi-rigid.• Stands high temperatures.• Translucent.
Thermoplastic elastomer/polyurethane (TPE/TPU)	• Abrasion resistant.• Difficult to print.• Durable.• Elastic.• Flexible.
Plaster (ZP-130) and binder (CA101 cyanoacrylate)	• Expensive.• Realistic response for drilling.• Rigid.
Rubber resin (TangoPlus FLX930)	• Difficult post-processing.• Expensive.• Flexible.

Applications of 3D printed models in the medical field

One of the key current applications of 3D printing in the medical field is the creation of patient-specific models for the pre-planning of surgery to improve the accuracy of the surgical technique and reduce time and complications.⁶⁰ A few examples are outlined below.

In orthopedics, 3D printing has been mainly used to produce implants and prosthetics that are custom-made for patients (Figure 3(a)). 3D modeling is used to obtain an exact image of anatomical structures such as bones to treat defects and fractures. Multiple applications were reported such as in reconstructive surgery, joint arthroplasty, trauma management, sports medicine, spine, hand, and shoulder surgeries, as reviewed by Tetsworth et al.⁶¹

Figure 3.

(a) A custom cage with an iliac braid to ensure enough screws can be used for firm fixation and a 3D-printed augment to the superior surface of the cage for stable support. (b) Comparison of a digital design of a 3D helmet specially made for a patient with post-craniectomy defect, with actual fitting after printing. (b1) Anterior view; (b3) Side view. Red line indicates the position of vascular anastomosis where compression was to be avoided. (c) 3D printed models of a double outlet right ventricle. Ao: aorta; AV: aortic valve; LA: left atrium; LV: left ventricle; MV: mitral valve; SVC: superior vena cava; TV: tricuspid valve; VIF: ventriculoinfundibular fold.

In neurosurgery, approximately half of the reported 3D-printing applications were related to skull and vascular categories.⁶⁴ For example, 3D-printing was utilized to produce a personalized patient-specific helmet for post-craniectomy defect to enable safe rehabilitation of the patient since standardized helmets were not optimal (Figure 3(b)). Moreover, 3D-printed phantom heads were used to pre-plan a thrombectomy procedure. This approach allowed testing ahead of possible challenges while trying different thrombectomy methods by controlling important variables one at a time, such as angulation of the middle cerebral artery or clot length.⁶⁵

In the field of cardiology, 3D printing technology has provided multiple useful applications. For patients with congenital heart disease, customized 3D-printed replicas of the patients’ hearts were used to better understand the complex anatomy of the disease (Figure 3(c)). In addition, the replica can be further used to simulate surgical intervention and help medical professionals enhance their surgical skills.⁶³ Furthermore, when used alongside CAD and four-dimensional (4D) flow MRI, 3D printing has shown value in producing a duplicate of semilunar valves to accurately assess their structure and physiological function. This technology could become a promising tool in the research of tissue engineering for producing optimal aortic valve replacements.⁶⁶

In the field of pediatric surgery, an example of a 3D-printing application is the modeling of the surgical separation of a complex case of conjoined twins to minimize the number of operations and improve the clinical outcome. A 3D reconstruction of the anatomical parts that were involved in the congenital fusion was performed using CT images. Three 3D models were printed (liver, rib cage, and the thoracoabdominal region). The surgical team that used these models for pre-operative planning believed that it was an ideal way to achieve a successful surgical outcome in such complicated cases.⁶⁷

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020, which placed tremendous strain on the healthcare system worldwide, leading to a shortage of supplies such as protective equipment and respiratory supportive care. 3D-printing technology played a successful role during this time by allowing the rapid production of vital equipment. The venturi valve, a vital component of ventilators, has had a shortage of supply and has been difficult to substitute worldwide. 3D-printed venturi valves produced by local startups have proven to be a successful alternative. Other examples were personal protective equipment (PPEs), face masks, face shields, and mask extenders^68,69 (Figure 4), which were easily prototyped by researchers, physicians, and other healthcare workers.^8,70,71

Figure 4.

(a) (Left) The design of the 3D model before printing. (Right) The 3D printed model after printing.⁷⁰ (b) Reusable 3D printed headband allowing flexible face shields insertion. (c) 3D printed mask extender.

Patient counseling

A review by Traynor et al. highlighted the value of the use of 3D-printed models in improving patient counseling and doctor–patient communication in 19 different medical specialties. Patients found that having a 3D printed model along with the imaging and scans was very helpful to understand their condition and better communicate with their doctors.⁷² However, some patients may perceive overwhelming emotions when confronted with a 3D model of their brain tumors.⁷³

Noteworthy, most of these studies used basic subjective research instruments such as questionnaires with a 1–10 scale to determine the effectiveness of communication using 3D models, which does not fully reflect the complexity of human perception and understanding. Therefore, further studies are required using more objective tools and a larger sample size.⁷²

Applications of 3D printed models in OBGYN

The use of 3D printing technology has been recently introduced in OBGYN for patient management and professional training purposes. In the following sections, we review the reported utilization of 3D printing models in the field of OBGYN in pre-operative surgical planning, drug delivery and implants, training purposes, and patient counseling.

Diagnostics and presurgical planning

In the fetomaternal specialty, the use of 3D printed models together with prenatal ultrasound reduced the misdiagnosis of fetal abnormalities from 5% to 0.4%.⁷⁴ It has also been used in the training of OBGYN residents in simulation settings,⁹ including practicing communication in sensitive situations such as examining patients of sexual assault.⁷⁵ Moreover, a 3D printed model was generated using ultrasound images of a fetus with meningomyelocele in preparation for intrauterine surgical intervention. The model provided an excellent opportunity for the surgical team to practice the surgical repair of meningomyelocele beforehand.⁷⁶

Using 3D printed technology for the pre-planning of complex OBGYN surgeries for uterine abnormalities is found to be a useful complementary tool in conventional 2D imaging.⁷⁷ It has been applied in surgeries for uterine fibroids, including myomectomies and hysterectomies (Figure 5).^1,78,79 In addition, 3D-printed models of the gravid uterus with multiple uterine fibroids provided precise identification of the myoma’s location to plan a safe cesarean section incision.⁸⁰

Figure 5.

Sagittal plane views of 3D digital fibrosed uterus model (top-left) and 3D printed model (top-right). The model was printed in two pieces (bottom), with the mid-sagittal plane as the dissecting line. Fibroids were printed in translucent red, endometrium in opaque blue, and non-neoplastic myometrium and cervical tissue in clear material. Magnets (gray dots) are used to hold the two pieces together.

Surgical management of advanced endometriosis is often challenging and carries the risk of multiple complications.^1,81 One case report has demonstrated the value of using 3D printing in patients with severe endometriosis. A 3D pelvic model was generated from the patient’s pre-operative MRI, which was then compared with the intraoperative findings. The authors reported the accuracy of the model in visualizing the anatomy, location, and extent of the infiltrative endometriotic nodules and endorsed the value of using 3D-printed personalized models to enhance the safety and success of surgery for patients with deep infiltrative endometriosis.^82,83

Therapeutics

In the management of gynecologic tumors, a 3D- printed stent loaded with localized cytotoxic drugs (cisplatin-polymer compound stent) was used in mice models of ovarian cancer. Such a promising strategy can reduce the systemic side effects compared with the use of systemic cytotoxic drugs.⁸⁴ Likewise, 3D-printed hormone-eluted constructs were developed to provide personalized biodegradable implants for indicated hormonal therapies.⁸⁵

In uterine and cervical cancer, brachytherapy can be suboptimal in large tumors with extensive paravaginal or parametrial involvement. Laan et al. developed patient-tailored 3D-printed applicators based on MR images. This strategy could improve the target coverage and lead to an effective brachytherapy procedure with fewer side effects, and better quality of life post-treatment.⁸⁶

The use of a synthetic mesh in the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has been recently restricted or banned in several countries due to long-term postoperative complications. This has necessitated the need for a new class of mesh-based repair that is safe and effective. Paul et al. discussed the potential of the 3D printing technology to improve the outcome of POP surgeries by producing a patient-personalized mesh that allows control over the pore size, geometry, and interconnectivity of the designed mesh. In addition, they presented the possibility of applying the technology of 3D bioprinting in producing a safer and more biocompatible mesh with less risk of foreign body response. In bioprinting, natural compounds (polysaccharides and synthetic polymers) are integrated with cells to produce an extracellular-like material that supports the growth of cells and their functionality.^87
–89

Patient education and counseling

A study of patient education incorporated the use of personalized 3D-printed models of endometrial cancer to educate patients about their illnesses. Based on the feedback, patients expressed higher satisfaction with the 3D models during the explanation by the surgeons in comparison to only using the 2D MRI images. Patients reported an excellent understanding of their disease, surgical procedures, and risk of complications. In addition, when used in presurgical planning, surgeons indicated better experience with pre-operative patient counseling and understanding of the positional relationship between the tumor and the uterus.⁷⁹

3D models of cleft lip and palate were used for patient education. A study by Chou et al. used 3D-printed models from normal and abnormal anatomy CT scans. The models were used to educate expecting parents with a prenatal diagnosis of cleft lip and palate. There was a high level of parent satisfaction in terms of understanding the condition and the proposed corrective surgery.^90,91

Professional training

One study demonstrated the application of 3D-printed cervical cancer models for OBGYN residents’ training purposes (Figure 6(a)). This study aimed to create a low-cost model that looks and feels realistic (Figure 6(b)). The cervical neoplasm was adjusted to induce bleeding from the cervical os and the mass itself. It was presented to a group of OBGYN residents during a hybrid simulation session. They were tasked with taking a medical history and performing a physical examination on a printed model. During the pelvic examination, the residents successfully visualized the abnormality and observed the bleeding using a speculum. They also attempted to suture the bleeding sites. The majority of the residents reported a positive learning experience. However, there were suggestions for future improvement to enhance the realism and accuracy of the cervical model. These suggestions included securely fixing the cervix to the pelvic model for more stable and comfortable usage, as well as using various colors to simulate a more realistic experience.⁹

Figure 6.

(a) 3D design of the cervical model: normal (left), with tumor (right). (b) Final printed cervical model with tumor (top), and cervical models with different presentations of cervical cancer (bottom).

Current challenges in applying 3D printing in clinical practice

The use of 3D printing technology in the medical field, including OBGYN, presents both challenges and opportunities for improvement. For a clinician, creating a customized 3D model for a patient could be inconvenient as it requires the expertise of highly skilled technicians and specific software for the conversion process from radiological images to 3D printable formats.^4,92 We believe this can potentially be simplified through the development of user-friendly software and tools, reducing the reliance on skilled technicians, and streamlining the workflow for clinicians.

Moreover, the choices of soft materials that can be used to closely represent human tissues are quite limited and require specific printer resolutions. These are particularly needed to meet the required dynamic nature of the designed models representing the female pelvic organs such as during the stages of pregnancy or genital prolapse. In addition, 3D printed models used in training and educating medical professionals are usually white, when in fact real human organs are multi-colored. Hence, the color of the materials plays an equal role alongside texture.⁴ Therefore, new materials that closely mimic human tissues should be explored and developed, to improve the realism of 3D printed models.

The investment in high-quality printers and materials comes at a cost; however, as this technology advances, the cost of the machines decreases¹⁵ as there are emerging companies that provide this service on demand which is expected to significantly reduce this cost.^93,94

Limitations

Since it is not a systematic review, this article does not cover all the published literature relevant to the topic. As is the nature of any narrative review, selection bias is a possibility.

Conclusion

The integration of 3D printing in the field of OBGYN presents unique opportunities to revolutionize the field. Although 3D printing has been used extensively in various medical specialties, its utilization in the OBGYN field remains limited due to certain challenges. By overcoming limitations such as converting radiological images, improving the precision of 3D models, expanding the range of materials, and decreasing their cost, 3D printing can then further contribute to the advancements in this field. Hence, by actively working toward optimizing the 3D printing technology from various aspects, it can help improve patient outcomes, educate medical professionals, optimize treatment strategies, and altogether reinforce innovative healthcare practices in the OBGYN field.

Footnotes

Not applicable.

Declarations

ORCID iDs

Afnan AlRawi

Tasneem Basha

Ghada Mohammed

References

Flaxman

Cooke

Miguel

, et al. A review and guide to creating patient specific 3D printed anatomical models from MRI for benign gynecologic surgery. 3D Print Med 2021; 7: 17.

Berman

3-D printing: the new industrial revolution. Bus Horiz 2012; 55: 7.

Stewart

EA.

Uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1646–1655.

Shahrubudin

Koshy

Alipal

, et al. Challenges of 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products: a case study of Malaysian manufacturing firms. Heliyon 2020; 6(4): e03734.

Yan

Dong

, et al. A review of 3D printing technology for medical applications. Engineering 2018; 4: 729–742.

Klein

Wang

MY.

3D printing and neurosurgery—ready for prime time?

World Neurosurg 2013; 80(3–4): 233–235.

Mosadegh

Xiong

Dunham

, et al. Current progress in 3D printing for cardiovascular tissue engineering. Biomed Mater 2015; 10: 034002.

O’Connor

Huellewig

Sithiyopasakul

, et al. 3D printed mask extenders as a supplement to isolation masks to relieve posterior auricular discomfort: an innovative 3D printing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 3D Print Med 2020; 6: 27.

Bartellas

Ryan

Doucet

, et al. Three-dimensional printing of a hemorrhagic cervical cancer model for postgraduate gynecological training. Cureus 2017; 9: e950.

10.

Xia

Zhai

Chang

, et al. Clinical applications of 3-dimensional printing technology in hip joint. Orthop Surg 2019; 11(4): 533–544.

11.

Mohammed

Fitzpatrick

Gibson

Customised design of a patient specific 3D printed whole mandible implant. KnE Eng 2017; 2: 104–111.

12.

Ackland

Robinson

Redhead

, et al. A personalized 3D-printed prosthetic joint replacement for the human temporomandibular joint: from implant design to implantation. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017; 69: 404–411.

13.

Deng

Huang

, et al. A three-dimensional printed model in preoperative consent for ventricular septal defect repair. J Cardiothorac Surg 2021; 16: 299.

14.

Preece

Williams

Lam

, et al. “Let’s get physical”: advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2013; 6(4): 216–224.

15.

Mardis

NJ.

Emerging technology and applications of 3d printing in the medical field. Mo Med 2018; 115(4): 368–373.

16.

Zhang

3D printing and its current status of application in obstetrics and gynecological diseases. Bioengineering 2023; 10: 299.

17.

Daniilidis

Theodoridis

Grimbizis

GF.

Chapter 7: 3D printing in gynecology and obstetrics. In: 3D printing: applications in medicine and surgery Volume 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2022, pp. 141–157.

18.

Zhang

, et al. The role of ultrasound and MRI in diagnosing of obstetrics cardiac disorders: a systematic review. J Radiat Res Appl Sci 2022; 15: 261–269.

19.

Ngo

Kashani

Imbalzano

, et al. Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Composites Part B Eng 2018; 143: 172–196.

20.

Mitsouras

Liacouras

Imanzadeh

, et al. Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. Radiographics 2015; 35: 1965–1988.

21.

Garcia

Yang

Mongrain

, et al. 3D printing materials and their use in medical education: a review of current technology and trends for the future. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn 2018; 4(1): 27–40.

22.

Horvath

Cameron

Mastering 3D printing: a guide to modeling, printing, and prototyping. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: Apress, 2020.

23.

Brown

Beer

. Development of a stereolithography (STL) slicing and G-code generation algorithm for an entry level 3-D printer. In: 2013 Africon, proceedings of the AFRICON 2013, Pointe-Aux-Piments, Mauritius, 9–12 September 2013, pp. 1–5. New York: IEEE.

24.

Ventola

CL.

Medical applications for 3D printing: current and projected uses. P T 2014; 39(10): 704–711.

25.

Torta

3D printing: an introduction. Herndon, VA: Mercury Learning and Information, 2019.

26.

Aimar

Palermo

Innocenti

The role of 3D printing in medical applications: a state of the art. J Healthc Eng 2019; 2019: 5340616.

27.

Higgins

Leung

Radacsi

3D printing surgical phantoms and their role in the visualization of medical procedures. Ann 3D Print Med 2022; 6: 100057.

28.

Pou

Riveiro

Davim

JP.

Additive manufacturing: a volume in handbooks in advanced manufacturing., 2021.

29.

Mostafaei

Elliott

Barnes

, et al. Binder jet 3D printing—process parameters, materials, properties, modeling, and challenges. Prog Mater Sci 2021; 119: 100707.

30.

Matsumoto

Morris

, Foley Amsterdam: Elsevier TA, et al. Three-dimensional physical modeling: applications and experience at Mayo Clinic. Radiographics 2015; 35(7): 1989–2006.

31.

Khoshkhoo

Carrano

Blersch

DM.

Effect of surface slope and build orientation on surface finish and dimensional accuracy in material jetting processes. Procedia Manuf 2018; 26: 720–730.

32.

Kim

Zhao

. Process-level modeling and simulation for HP’s Multi Jet Fusion 3D printing technology. In: 2016 1st international workshop on cyber-physical production systems (CPPS), Vienna, 12 April 2016, pp. 1–4. New York: IEEE.

33.

Tee

Tran

Leary

, et al. 3D Printing of polymer composites with material jetting: mechanical and fractographic analysis. Addit Manuf 2020; 36: 101558.

34.

Msallem

Sharma

Cao

, et al. Evaluation of the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed anatomical mandibular models using FFF, SLA, SLS, MJ, and BJ printing technology. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 817.

35.

Ibrahim

Broilo

Heitz

, et al. Dimensional error of selective laser sintering, three-dimensional printing and PolyJet models in the reproduction of mandibular anatomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2009; 37(3): 167–173.

36.

Stratasys 3D Printers. Dental materials (by Polyjet Printing), https://www.sys-uk.com/materials/polyjet/dental-materials/

37.

Salentijn

GIJ

Oomen

Grajewski

, et al. Fused deposition modeling 3D printing for (bio)analytical device fabrication: procedures, materials, and applications. Anal Chem 2017; 89: 7053–7061.

38.

Raguraman

Rajan

Chapter 2: nanoengineering/technology for tissue engineering and organ printing. In: Ahmad

Packirisamy

(eds) Emerging nanotechnologies for medical applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2023, pp. 35–54.

39.

Gioumouxouzis

Tzimtzimis

Katsamenis

, et al. Fabrication of an osmotic 3D printed solid dosage form for controlled release of active pharmaceutical ingredients. Eur J Pharm Sci 2020; 143: 105176.

40.

Wegner

Chapter 2: introduction to powder bed fusion of polymers. In: Pou

Riveiro

Davim

(eds) Additive manufacturing. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2021, pp. 33–75.

41.

Cronskär

Bäckström

Rännar

LE.

Production of customized hip stem prostheses—a comparison between conventional machining and electron beam melting (EBM). Rapid Prototyp J 2013; 19: 365–372.

42.

Jardini

Larosa

de Carvalho Zavaglia

, et al. Customised titanium implant fabricated in additive manufacturing for craniomaxillofacial surgery. Virtual Phys Prototyp 2014; 9: 115–125.

43.

Jardini

Larosa

Maciel Filho

, et al. Cranial reconstruction: 3D biomodel and custom-built implant created using additive manufacturing. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014; 42(8): 1877–1884.

44.

Zhang

, et al. Evaluation of three-dimensional printing for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy of renal tumors: a preliminary report. World J Urol 2016; 34(4): 533–537.

45.

Obikawa

Yoshino

Shinozuka

Sheet steel lamination for rapid manufacturing. J Mater Process Technol 1999; 89–90: 171–176.

46.

Cedeño-Viveros

Vázquez-Lepe

Rodríguez

, et al. Influence of process parameters for sheet lamination based on laser micro-spot welding of austenitic stainless steel sheets for bone tissue applications. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2021; 115: 247–262.

47.

Jahnke

Schwarz

Ziegert

, et al. Paper-based 3D printing of anthropomorphic CT phantoms: feasibility of two construction techniques. Eur Radiol 2019; 29(3): 1384–1390.

48.

Davoudinejad

Chapter 5: vat photopolymerization methods in additive manufacturing. In: Pou

Riveiro

Davim

(eds) Additive manufacturing. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2021, pp. 159–181.

49.

Kadry

Wadnap

, et al. Digital light processing (DLP) 3D-printing technology and photoreactive polymers in fabrication of modified-release tablets. Eur J Pharm Sci 2019; 135: 60–67.

50.

Wang

Goyanes

Gaisford

, et al. Stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printing of oral modified-release dosage forms. Int J Pharm 2016; 503: 207–212.

51.

Arcaute

Mann

Wicker

Stereolithography of spatially controlled multi-material bioactive poly(ethylene glycol) scaffolds. Acta Biomater 2010; 6(3): 1047–1054.

52.

Goyanes

Trenfield

, et al. Stereolithography (SLA) 3D printing of a bladder device for intravesical drug delivery. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2021; 120: 111773.

53.

Alexander

Wake

Chepelev

, et al. A guideline for 3D printing terminology in biomedical research utilizing ISO/ASTM standards. 3D Print Med 2021; 7: 8.

54.

Gibson

Rosen

Stucker

Additive manufacturing technologies: rapid prototyping to direct digital manufacturing. 1 ed. New York: Springer, 2010, p. 459.

55.

Gülcan

Günaydın

Tamer

The state of the art of material jetting—a critical review. Polymers 2021; 13: 2829.

56.

Hsiang Loh

Pei

Gonzalez-Gutierrez

, et al. An overview of material extrusion troubleshooting. Appl Sci 2020; 10: 4776.

57.

Brandt

Laser additive manufacturing materials, design, technologies, and applications. Sawston: Woodhead Publishing, 2017.

58.

Aboulkhair

Bosio

Gilani

, et al. Chapter six: additive manufacturing processes for metals. In: Kadkhodapour

Schmauder

Sajadi

(eds) Quality analysis of additively manufactured metals. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2023, pp. 201–258.

59.

Pagac

Hajnys

Q-P

, et al. A review of vat photopolymerization technology: materials, applications, challenges, and future trends of 3D printing. Polymers 2021; 13: 598.

60.

Jones

Sung

Weinberg

, et al. Three-dimensional modeling may improve surgical education and clinical practice. Surg Innov 2016; 23(2): 189–195.

61.

Tetsworth

Block

Glatt

Putting 3D modelling and 3D printing into practice: virtual surgery and preoperative planning to reconstruct complex post-traumatic skeletal deformities and defects. SICOT J 2017; 3: 16.

62.

Pang

Fang

Chen

, et al. Patient-specific 3D-printed helmet for post-craniectomy defect: a case report. 3D Print Med 2022; 8: 4.

63.

Yoo

Thabit

Kim

, et al. 3D printing in medicine of congenital heart diseases. 3D Print Med 2015; 2(1): 3.

64.

Thiong’o

Bernstein

Drake

JM.

3D printing in neurosurgery education: a review. 3D Print Med 2021; 7: 9.

65.

Sommer

Bhurwani

MMS

Mokin

, et al. Evaluation of challenges and limitations of mechanical thrombectomy using 3D printed neurovascular phantoms. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2021; 11601: 116010B.

66.

Hussein

Voyer-Nguyen

Portnoy

, et al. Simulation of semilunar valve function: computer-aided design, 3D printing and flow assessment with MR. 3D Print Med 2020; 6: 2.

67.

Inserra

Borro

Spada

, et al. Advanced 3D “modeling” and “printing” for the surgical planning of a successful case of thoraco-omphalopagus conjoined twins separation. Front Physiol 2020; 11: 566766.

68.

Printables by Josef Prusa. Prusa face shield (RC2), 2020, https://www.prusaprinters.org/prints/25857-protective-face-shield-rc1

69.

CDA Innovations. About NanoHack, 2020, https://copper3d.com/pages/hackthepandemic

70.

Tino

Moore

Antoline

, et al. COVID-19 and the role of 3D printing in medicine. 3D Print Med 2020; 6: 11.

71.

NIH 3D. Surgical mask tension release band for ear comfort & extended use, 2020, https://3d.nih.gov/entries/3dpx-013410

72.

Traynor

Shearn

Milano

, et al. The use of 3D-printed models in patient communication: a scoping review. J 3D Print Med 2022; 6(1): 13–23.

73.

van de Belt

Nijmeijer

Grim

, et al. Patient-specific actual-size three-dimensional printed models for patient education in glioma treatment: first experiences. World Neurosurg 2018; 117: e99–e105.

74.

Liang

Zhao

, et al. Feasibility analysis of 3D printing with prenatal ultrasound for the diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. J Ultrasound Med 2022; 41: 1385–1396.

75.

Comeau

Goudie

Murphy

, et al. The use of silicone vaginal repair models as an adjunct to mannequins for simulation training in sexual assault clinical learning for obstetrics and gynecology medical residents. Cureus 2020; 12: e7410.

76.

Miller

Ahn

Garcia

, et al. Ultrasound-based three-dimensional printed medical model for multispecialty team surgical rehearsal prior to fetoscopic myelomeningocele repair. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51(6): 836–837.

77.

Aluwee

Kato

Zhou

, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of uterine fibroids: a preliminary investigation into the usefulness of 3D-rendered images for surgical planning. Springerplus 2015; 4: 384.

78.

Flaxman

Sheikh

Althobaity

, et al. Optimizing pre-surgical planning for a complex myomectomy using a patient-specific three-dimensional printed anatomical model. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2020; 42(6): 697–699.

79.

Sayed Aluwee

Zhou

Kato

, et al. Evaluation of pre-surgical models for uterine surgery by use of three-dimensional printing and mold casting. Radiol Phys Technol 2017; 10: 279–285.

80.

Mackey

Core

, et al. Three-dimensional-printed uterine model for surgical planning of a cesarean delivery complicated by multiple myomas. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133(4): 720–724.

81.

Sizzi

Rossetti

Malzoni

, et al. Italian multicenter study on complications of laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007; 14(4): 453–462.

82.

Ajao

Clark

Kelil

, et al. Case report: three-dimensional printed model for deep infiltrating endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24(7): 1239–1242.

83.

Flaxman

Singh

Morissette

, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of deep infiltrating endometriotic lesions of the bowel. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018; 25(5): 753–754.

84.

Wang

Qiao

Yang

, et al. The role of a drug-loaded poly (lactic co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) copolymer stent in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Cancer Biol Med 2020; 17: 237–250.

85.

Tappa

Jammalamadaka

Ballard

, et al. Medication eluting devices for the field of OBGYN (MEDOBGYN): 3D printed biodegradable hormone eluting constructs, a proof of concept study. PLoS ONE 2017; 12(8): e0182929.

86.

Laan

Nout

Dankelman

, et al. MRI-driven design of customised 3D printed gynaecological brachytherapy applicators with curved needle channels. 3D Print Med 2019; 5: 8.

87.

Paul

Darzi

Werkmeister

, et al. Emerging nano/micro-structured degradable polymeric meshes for pelvic floor reconstruction. Nanomaterials (Basel) 2020; 10: 1120.

88.

Barone

Abramowitch

Moalli

PA.

Host response to biomaterials for pelvic floor reconstruction. In: Badylak

(ed.) Host response to biomaterials: the impact of host response on biomaterial selection. ScienceDirect, 2015, pp. 375–423.

89.

Shepherd

Feola

Abramowitch

, et al. Uniaxial biomechanical properties of seven different vaginally implanted meshes for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2012; 23(5): 613–620.

90.

Chou

Hallac

Shih

, et al. 3D-printed models of cleft lip and palate for surgical training and patient education. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2018; 55(3): 323–327.

91.

Calonge

AlAli

Griffin

, et al. Three-dimensional printing of models of cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 4(4): e689.

92.

JRM

Culaba

. 3D printing: challenges and opportunities of an emerging disruptive technology. In: 2019 IEEE 11th international conference on humanoid, nanotechnology, information technology, communication and control, environment, and management (HNICEM), Laoag, Philippines, 2019, pp. 1–6. New York: IEEE.

93.

Kantaros

Diegel

Piromalis

, et al. 3D printing: making an innovative technology widely accessible through makerspaces and outsourced services. Mater Today Proc 2022; 49: 2712–2723.

94.

Banks

Adding value in additive manufacturing: researchers in the United Kingdom and Europe look to 3D printing for customization. IEEE Pulse 2013; 4(6): 22–26.

The Role of Three-dimensional Printed Models in Women’s Health

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Overview of basic technical aspects of 3D printing

Applications of 3D printed models in the medical field

Patient counseling

Applications of 3D printed models in OBGYN

Diagnostics and presurgical planning

Therapeutics

Patient education and counseling

Professional training

Current challenges in applying 3D printing in clinical practice

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declarations

ORCID iDs

References