This study explores the workflow of in-house computer-aided design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in head and neck oncologic surgery, focusing on 3D printing of biomodels and cutting guides.
Objective
We aim to describe a validated workflow for an in-house 3D Printing Department within a level III University Hospital of the Spanish Public Health System using free software.
Methods
Our study outlines a cost-effective and time-efficient workflow utilizing free software for 3D printing. We assess the feasibility of establishing an in-house department compared to outsourcing to the biomedical industry.
Results
The study demonstrates that creating an in-house 3D Printing Department in a hospital setting is a viable option. We discuss the advantages, including cost savings and reduced lead times, as well as the limitations of this approach.
Conclusions
In conclusion, establishing an in-house 3D Printing Department has the potential to significantly streamline complex head and neck oncologic surgery procedures. This approach can enhance accessibility to advanced CAD/CAM, making them more efficient and cost-effective within the healthcare system.
YangWFChoiWSWongMCet al.Three-dimensionally printed patient-specific surgical plates increase accuracy of oncologic head and neck reconstruction versus conventional surgical plates: A comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(1):363-375. doi:10.1245/s10434-020-08732-y
4.
PadillaPLMericliAFLargoRDGarveyPB. Computer-aided design and manufacturing versus conventional surgical planning for head and neck reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;148(1):183-192. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000008085
5.
RuxuDSuYSYanYet al.A systematic approach for making 3D-printed patient-specific implants for craniomaxillofacial reconstruction. Engineering. 2020;6(11):1291-1301. doi:10.1016/j.eng.2020.02.019
6.
YangWFZhangCYChoiWSet al.A novel ‘surgeon-dominated’ approach to the design of 3D-printed patient-specific surgical plates in mandibular reconstruction: A proof-of-concept study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(1):13-21. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2019.05.005
BoscRHersantBCarloniRet al.Mandibular reconstruction after cancer: An in-house approach to manufacturing cutting guides. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46(1):24-31. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2016.10.004
9.
DamecourtANietoNGalmicheSGarrelRde BoutrayM. In-house 3D treatment planning for mandibular reconstruction by free fibula flap in cancer: Our technique. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2020;137(6):501-505. doi:10.1016/j.anorl.2020.02.002
10.
Dell’Aversana OrabonaGAbbateVMaglittoFet al.Low-cost, self-made CAD/CAM-guiding system for mandibular reconstruction. Surg Oncol. 2018;27(2):200-207. doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2018.03.007
11.
LuuKPakdelAWangEPrismanE. In house virtual surgery and 3D complex head and neck reconstruction. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;47(1):75. doi:10.1186/s40463-018-0320-9
12.
LorLSMassaryDAChungSABrownPJRunyanCM. Cost analysis for in-house versus industry-printed skull models for acute midfacial fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020;8(5):e2831. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000002831
13.
BallardDHMillsPDuszakRJrWeismanJARybickiFJWoodardPK. Medical 3D printing cost savings in orthopedic and maxillofacial surgery: Cost analysis of operating room time saved with 3D printed anatomic models and surgical guides. Acad Radiol. 2020;27(8):1103-1113. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2019.08.011
14.
LiSSCopeland-HalperinLRKaminskyAJLiJLodhiFKMiraliakbariR. Computer-aided surgical simulation in head and neck reconstruction: A cost comparison among traditional, in-house, and commercial options. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2018;34(5):341-347. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1621735
15.
ISO 13485:2016 medical devices—quality management systems—requirements for regulatory purposes. https://www.iso.org/standard/59752.html. Accessed February 08, 2023.
16.
MDCG 2019-11 guidance on qualification and classification of software in regulation (EU) 2017/745 - MDR and regulation (EU) 2017/746 - IVDR. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/37581. Accessed February 07, 2023.
17.
Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European parliament and of the council - of 5 April 2017 - on medical devices, amending directive 2001/83/EC, regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing council directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. Https://Eur-Lex.Europa.Eu/Legal-Content/EN/TXT/?Uri=CELEX%3A32017R0745. Accessed February 07, 2022.
ISO 10993-1:2018 biological evaluation of medical devices — Part 1: evaluation and testing within a risk management process. https://www.iso.org/standard/68936.html. Accessed February 07, 2023.
FedorovABeichelRKalpathy-CramerJ, et al.3D slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1323-1341. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001
23.
SatoTTakagiT. Validation of the influence of CT slice thickness on the quantitative accuracy and image quality of single photon emission computed tomography. Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol. 2021;9(2):148-157. doi:10.22038/AOJNMB.2021.54670.1376
ASTM E2092-09. Standard test method for distortion temperature in three-point bending by thermomechanical analysis. https://www.astm.org/e2092-09.html. Accessed March 12, 2023.
29.
YangWFChoiWSZhuWY, et al.Spatial deviations of the temporomandibular joint after oncological mandibular reconstruction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;51(1):44-53. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2021.02.033
30.
TarsitanoABattagliaSCrimiSCioccaLScottiRMarchettiC. Is a computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing method for mandibular reconstruction economically viable?J Cranio-Maxillo-Fac Surg. 2016;44(7):795-799. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2016.04.003
31.
ZweifelDFSimonCHoarauRPaschePBroomeM. Are virtual planning and guided surgery for head and neck reconstruction economically viable?J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73(1):170-175. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2014.07.038
32.
PuJJChoiWSYuPWongMCMLoAWISuYX. Do predetermined surgical margins compromise oncological safety in computer-assisted head and neck reconstruction?Oral Oncol. 2020;111:104914. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104914
