Chae Michael P, Chung Ru Dee, Smith Julian A, Hunter-Smith David J, Rozen Warren Matthew
Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.
Peninsula Clinical School, Central Clinical School at Monash University, The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Gland Surg. 2021 Jul;10(7):2293-2303. doi: 10.21037/gs-21-264.
A growing number of studies demonstrate the benefits of 3D printing in improving surgical efficiency and subsequently clinical outcomes. However, the number of studies evaluating the accuracy of 3D printing techniques remains scarce. All publications appraising the accuracy of 3D printing between 1950 and 2018 were reviewed using well-established databases, including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and Embase. An validation study of our 3D printing technique was undertaken using unprocessed chicken radius bones (). Calculating its maximum length, we compared the measurements from computed tomography (CT) scans (CT group), image segmentation (SEG group) and 3D-printed (3DP) models (3DP group). Twenty-eight comparison studies in 19 papers have been identified. Published mean error of CT-based 3D printing techniques were 0.46 mm (1.06%) in stereolithography, 1.05 mm (1.78%) in binder jet technology, 0.72 mm (0.82%) in PolyJet technique, 0.20 mm (0.95%) in fused filament fabrication (FFF) and 0.72 mm (1.25%) in selective laser sintering (SLS). In the current validation study, mean errors were 0.34 mm (0.86%) in CT group, 1.02 mm (2.51%) in SEG group and 1.16 mm (2.84%) in 3DP group. Our Peninsula 3D printing technique using a FFF 3D printer thus produced accuracy similar to the published studies (1.16 mm, 2.84%). There was a statistically significant difference (P<10) between the CT group and the latter SEG and 3DP groups indicating that most of the error is introduced during image segmentation stage.
越来越多的研究表明3D打印在提高手术效率以及随后的临床结果方面具有益处。然而,评估3D打印技术准确性的研究数量仍然稀少。使用包括PubMed、Medline、科学网和Embase在内的权威数据库,对1950年至2018年间所有评估3D打印准确性的出版物进行了综述。使用未加工的鸡桡骨进行了我们3D打印技术的一项验证研究()。计算其最大长度,我们比较了计算机断层扫描(CT)扫描(CT组)、图像分割(SEG组)和3D打印(3DP)模型(3DP组)的测量结果。在19篇论文中确定了28项比较研究。基于CT的3D打印技术的已发表平均误差在立体光刻中为0.46毫米(1.06%),在粘结剂喷射技术中为1.05毫米(1.78%),在PolyJet技术中为0.72毫米(0.82%),在熔融沉积成型(FFF)中为0.20毫米(0.95%),在选择性激光烧结(SLS)中为0.72毫米(1.25%)。在当前的验证研究中,CT组的平均误差为0.34毫米(0.86%),SEG组为1.02毫米(2.51%),3DP组为1.16毫米(2.84%)。因此,我们使用FFF 3D打印机的半岛3D打印技术产生的准确性与已发表的研究相似(1.16毫米,2.84%)。CT组与后两者SEG组和3DP组之间存在统计学显著差异(P<10),表明大部分误差是在图像分割阶段引入的。