ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
A risk-stratified framework for in-house PLA 3D printing of non-critical medical device spare parts: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Procurement of non-critical medical device spare parts faces major challenges. These include high costs, long lead times, and supply chain fragility. In-house additive manufacturing (AM), specifically Polylactic Acid (PLA) Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), offers a potential solution but lacks systematic safety and economic validation. Objective: This study aimed to establish a risk-stratified framework for identifying suitable non-critical spare parts and to evaluate the engineering feasibility, economic impact, and operational implications of in-house PLA FDM 3D printing. Methods: A three-dimensional risk classification matrix (Functional, Contact, Load; F-C-L) was developed to screen eligible parts (F0, L0, C ≤ C1). Forty-two part models were selected. Engineering evaluations were conducted. These assessed dimensional accuracy, assembly fit, and simulated reliability. A comprehensive economic analysis was performed. It compared in-house printing with traditional OEM procurement. Metrics included unit cost, lead time, downtime, and estimated benefits. Results: The mean dimensional error was 0.18 ± 0.07 mm. All deviations remained within the ±0.5 mm tolerance. The first-print installation success rate was 92.9%, reaching 100% after minor adjustments. User-perceived performance was rated as comparable or acceptable. All parts passed scenario-specific durability tests (e.g., 20,000 press cycles for buttons). Economically, unit costs dropped significantly. 3D-printed parts cost CNY 66.86 vs. CNY 530.92 for OEM parts ( Conclusion: Within clearly defined safety boundaries, in-house PLA FDM 3D printing is technically viable. It is also economically advantageous. The proposed F-C-L risk matrix provides a pragmatic framework. It enhances hospital supply chain resilience and operational efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.