Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42098562›Full record

Review3D printing in medicine2026

A step-by-step guide for implementation of virtual surgical applications and patient data centralization: practical experience and lessons learned.

Renaat Coopman, Pieter Devolder, Constantijn Bogaert, Mauranne Lievens, Matthias Ureel, Benjamin Denoiseux, Kirsten Colpaert, Sabrina Commeyne, Johan Decruyenaere, Pieter De Backer and 12 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in 3D printing in medicine, 2026. 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

22 authors.

Renaat Coopman *Department of Oral & Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium. Renaat.Coopman@UGent.be.
Pieter Devolder *Department of Medical Imaging and Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Constantijn BogaertDepartment of Oral & Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Mauranne LievensDepartment of Oral & Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Matthias UreelDepartment of Oral & Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Benjamin DenoiseuxDepartment of Oral & Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Kirsten ColpaertData Science Institute, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Sabrina CommeyneDepartment of Pharmacy, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Johan DecruyenaereDepartment of Intensive Care, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Pieter De BackerDepartment of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Tom GoffinDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Christiaan PoletDepartment of Information and Communication Technology and Chief Information Officer (CIO), Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Niki RashidianDepartment of General & Hepatobiliary surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Katya Van DriesscheData Protection Officer, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Erik Van LaeckeDepartment of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Wim Van PaepegemDepartment of Materials, Textiles and Chemical Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Charles Van PraetDepartment of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Wim Van BiesenDepartment of Nephrology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Geert VilleirsDepartment of Medical Imaging and Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Peter De PaepeDepartment of Emergency Care Unit (ECU), Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Piet HoebekeDepartment of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Frank VermassenChief Executive Officer Ghent University Hospital, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe expansion of digitalization in the pre-, intra- and post-operative surgical phases allow the development and integration of advanced technologies such as virtual surgical planning (VSP), additive manufacturing (AM), augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) in surgical workflows, all aiming to improve the surgical precision and efficiency. However, their implementation in clinical practice leads to novel organizational challenges, such as excessive costs, inefficiencies in the use of hard- and software and availability, and the coordination of the required highly specific expertise and skill of different employees with backgrounds in different domains.

aimWe aim to provide a practical step-by-step overview of how a centralized platform within academic hospitals can solve practical and organizational problems concerning surgical digitalization.

methodsA bottom-up approach was used to ensure engagement from all stakeholders within the hospital. Hereto, a small core group identified all potential stakeholders deemed essential for a successful implementation of a centralized platform. These stakeholders were then initially approached separately by the core group and then brought together in multiple focus groups to discuss action points, identify essential components and find solutions for emerging barriers.

resultsThe implementation focused on 5 essential points: (1) medical imaging & segmentation process; (2) centralized Central Processing Unit (CPU) and Graphical Processing Unit (GPU) capacity with guaranteed continued collaboration with Department of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT); (3) medical device and in-house AM dealing with the production and sterilization of three dimensional (3D)-printed models; (4) Implementation of CPSD within the operating room; (5) External connection and collaboration with industry and other academic centres aimed to support interventional medical digitalization and the implementation of other innovative medical technologies. The protocol focuses on key aspects, including identifying existing innovations, naming prevailing challenges and formulating effective solutions.

conclusionCentralizing digitalization in the hospital streamlines workflows, enabling faster processing and improved multidisciplinary collaboration. Success depends on coordinated input from medical, technical, and legal experts. The resulting platform fosters ongoing innovation while staying compliant and adaptable. CLINICAL TRAIL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

3D printingArtificial intelligenceCentralisationDigitalizationImplementationPre-operative planningRadiologyStakeholderVirtual realityWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID42098562
PMCPMC13390418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.