Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30649649›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2018

Material characterization and selection for 3D-printed spine models.

John Hao, Raj Nangunoori, Ying Ying Wu, Mabaran Rajaraman, Daniel Cook, Alex Yu, Boyle Cheng, Kenji Shimada

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Application of a 3D-printed eye model for teaching direct ophthalmoscopy to undergraduates.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 3D printing in spine care: A review of current applications.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

John HaoCarnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Institute of Technology, CERLAB, 3000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. jhao1@andrew.cmu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4411-8724
Raj NangunooriAllegheny General Hospital, Department of Neurosurgery, 320 E North Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 15212, USA.
Ying Ying WuCarnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Institute of Technology, CERLAB, 3000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Mabaran RajaramanCarnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Institute of Technology, CERLAB, 3000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Daniel CookAllegheny General Hospital, Department of Neurosurgery, 320 E North Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 15212, USA.
Alex YuAllegheny General Hospital, Department of Neurosurgery, 320 E North Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 15212, USA.
Boyle ChengAllegheny General Hospital, Department of Neurosurgery, 320 E North Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 15212, USA.
Kenji ShimadaCarnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Institute of Technology, CERLAB, 3000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Allegheny General Hospital · USCarnegie Mellon University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The two most popular models used in anatomical training for residents, clinicians, or surgeons are cadavers and sawbones. The former is extremely costly and difficult to attain due to cost, ethical implications, and availability, while the latter is said to not have the same tactile fidelity or mechanical properties as human bone. This study examined the potential use of 3D-printed phantoms to emulate cadaveric, human vertebrae, in hopes of acting as a future use over cadavers. In so doing, we developed 3D-printed MedPhantom®, with the intended use to offer similar tactile feel, mechanical characteristics, and visual appearance as human bone. In order to quantify tactility, a mechanical test was developed where a 5-mm diameter diamond-coated bur spinning at 75,000 RPM swept across the specimens while continuously recording the resultant forces (N) and moments (N-cm), The bur sweep motion is common in orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery. Since most 3D-prints do not offer internal, trabecular structure similar to bone, an algorithm was written to create a stochastic framework of internal mesh to mimic cancellous bone within an STL (stereolithography) file. The ranges of mesh parameters were chosen after several visits with the neurosurgeons participating in the project. In order to quantify structural combinations of wall thickness, gap sizes, and varying cylindrical radii within a print, 1000 RPM compression test with a 5-mm diamond-coated bur was performed with resultant forces (N). Two sample t-test shows statistical significance that samples are not equal to the vertebrae (p < 0.05). Results from the bur sweep test showed 15% Gypsum® powder mixed with 100% Clear® Formlabs resin and 10% Castable® resin mixed with 90% Clear® resin were nearest to human, cadaveric vertebrae, with the difference of force and moment in the x-direction at only 5 N and 7-9 N-cm, respectively. Structural compression results showed that a 2 mm cortical wall, 4 mm or 5 mm gap size between cylinders inside the structure, and 0.25 mm radius of internal cylinders were the best fit parameters to match human vertebrae.

Indexed as

3D-print3D-printingBiomechanicsBoneCadaverMaterialsMechanical testModelNeurosurgeryOrthopedicsQualitativeRPMSawboneStereolithography

Identifiers

PMID30649649
PMCPMC6195498
OpenAlexW2897548725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.