Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38247908›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Advanced Strategies for the Fabrication of Multi-Material Anatomical Models of Complex Pediatric Oncologic Cases.

Arnau Valls-Esteve, Aitor Tejo-Otero, Núria Adell-Gómez, Pamela Lustig-Gainza, Felip Fenollosa-Artés, Irene Buj-Corral, Josep Rubio-Palau, Josep Munuera, Lucas Krauel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Arnau Valls-EsteveInnovation Department, SJD Barcelona Children's Hospital, Santa Rosa 39-57, 08950 Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1151-3042
Aitor Tejo-OteroCentre CIM, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (CIM UPC), Carrer de Llorens i Artigas, 12, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Núria Adell-GómezInnovation Department, SJD Barcelona Children's Hospital, Santa Rosa 39-57, 08950 Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9667-2420
Pamela Lustig-GainzaInnovation Department, SJD Barcelona Children's Hospital, Santa Rosa 39-57, 08950 Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain.
Felip Fenollosa-ArtésCentre CIM, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (CIM UPC), Carrer de Llorens i Artigas, 12, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4284-9649
Irene Buj-CorralDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Barcelona School of Industrial Engineering (ETSEIB), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Av. Diagonal, 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4058-4162
Josep Rubio-PalauMedicina i Recerca Translacional, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, Universitat de Barcelona, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2642-930X
Josep MunueraMedicina i Recerca Translacional, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, Universitat de Barcelona, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5154-1796
Lucas KrauelMedicina i Recerca Translacional, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, Universitat de Barcelona, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0254-4488

Funding

the project named QuirofAM Exp. COMRDI16-1-0011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The printing and manufacturing of anatomical 3D models has gained popularity in complex surgical cases for surgical planning, simulation and training, the evaluation of anatomical relations, medical device testing and patient-professional communication. 3D models provide the haptic feedback that Virtual or Augmented Reality (VR/AR) cannot provide. However, there are many technologies and strategies for the production of 3D models. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to show and compare eight different strategies for the manufacture of surgical planning and training prototypes. The eight strategies for creating complex abdominal oncological anatomical models, based on eight common pediatric oncological cases, were developed using four common technologies (stereolithography (SLA), selectie laser sinterning (SLS), fused filament fabrication (FFF) and material jetting (MJ)) along with indirect and hybrid 3D printing methods. Nine materials were selected for their properties, with the final models assessed for application suitability, production time, viscoelastic mechanical properties (shore hardness and elastic modulus) and cost. The manufacturing and post-processing of each strategy is assessed, with times ranging from 12 h (FFF) to 61 h (hybridization of FFF and SLS), as labor times differ significantly. Cost per model variation is also significant, ranging from EUR 80 (FFF) to EUR 600 (MJ). The main limitation is the mimicry of physiological properties. Viscoelastic properties and the combination of materials, colors and textures are also substantially different according to the strategy and the intended use. It was concluded that MJ is the best overall option, although its use in hospitals is limited due to its cost. Consequently, indirect 3D printing could be a solid and cheaper alternative.

Indexed as

additive manufacturingcomplex oncological casesfused deposition modellingfused filament fabricationindirect 3D printingmaterial jettingoncologyselective laser sinteringsurgerysurgical planning prototypes

Identifiers

PMID38247908
PMCPMC10813349

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.