Advertisement
Review Article| Volume 28, ISSUE 2, P165-179, September 2020

Developing a Point-of-Care Manufacturing Program for Craniomaxillofacial Surgery

  • Kevin Arce
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author.
    Affiliations
    Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Head and Neck Oncologic Surgery and Reconstruction, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic and Mayo College of Medicine, 200 First St. SW, Mail Code: RO_MA_12_03E-OS, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jonathan M. Morris
    Affiliations
    Division of Neuroradiology, Medical Director of Anatomic Modeling Lab, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo College of Medicine, 200 First St. SW, Mail Code: RO_MA_02_48WRAD, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Amy E. Alexander
    Affiliations
    Anatomic Modeling Lab, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Mail Code: RO_JO_06_201RAD, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Kyle S. Ettinger
    Affiliations
    Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Head and Neck Oncologic Surgery and Reconstruction, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic and Mayo College of Medicine, 200 First St. SW, Mail Code: RO_MA_12_03E-OS, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
    Search for articles by this author
      Point-of-care (POC) manufacturing is the just-in-time creation of anatomic models, surgical instruments, prosthetics, scaffolds, and other three-dimensional printed applications either at the place of patient care, such as a hospital, or in a centralized facility owned by the health care organization based on the patient’s medical imaging data.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribers receive full online access to your subscription and archive of back issues up to and including 2002.

      Content published before 2002 is available via pay-per-view purchase only.

      References

        • Huang M.F.
        • Alfi D.
        • Alfi J.
        • et al.
        The use of patient-specific implants in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
        Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019; 31: 593-600
        • Bauermeister A.J.
        • Zuriarrain A.
        • Newman M.I.
        Three-dimensional printing in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a systematic review.
        Ann Plast Surg. 2016; 77: 569-576
        • Roser S.M.
        • Ramachandra S.
        • Blair H.
        • et al.
        The accuracy of virtual surgical planning in free fibula mandibular reconstruction: comparison of planned and final results.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68: 2824-2832
        • Zheng Y.-x.
        • Yu D.-f.
        • Zhao J.-g.
        • et al.
        3D printout models vs. 3D-rendered images: which is better for preoperative planning?.
        J Surg Educ. 2016; 73: 518-523
        • Langridge B.
        • Momin S.
        • Coumbe B.
        • et al.
        Systematic review of the use of 3-dimensional printing in surgical teaching and assessment.
        J Surg Educ. 2018; 75: 209-221
      1. Astm I. ASTM52900-15 Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing—General Principles—Terminology. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015. 3(4): p. 5.

        • Christensen A.
        • Rybicki F.J.
        Maintaining safety and efficacy for 3D printing in medicine.
        3D Print Med. 2017; 3: 1-10
        • Innovations M.M.
        The rise of point-of-care manufacturing.
        (Available at:) (Accessed November 21, 2019)
        • Administration, F.a.D
        (Available at:) (Accessed November 21, 2019)
        • Williams F.C.
        • Hammer D.A.
        • Wentland T.R.
        • et al.
        Immediate teeth in fibulas: planning and digital workflow with point-of-care 3D printing.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2020.04.006
        • Marschall J.S.
        • Dutra V.
        • Flint R.L.
        • et al.
        In-house digital workflow for the management of acute mandible fractures.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 77: 2084.e1-e9
        • Sharkh H.A.
        • Makhoul N.
        In-house surgeon-led virtual surgical planning for maxillofacial reconstruction.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 78: 651-660
        • Luu K.
        • Pakdel A.
        • Wang E.
        • et al.
        In house virtual surgery and 3D complex head and neck reconstruction.
        J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018; 47: 75
        • Keller E.E.
        • Baltali E.
        • Liang X.
        • et al.
        Temporomandibular custom hemijoint replacement prosthesis: prospective clinical and kinematic study.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 70: 276-288
        • Zhao L.
        • Zhou S.
        • Fan T.
        • et al.
        Three-dimensional printing enhances preparation for repair of double outlet right ventricular surgery.
        J Card Surg. 2018; 33: 24-27
        • Ballard D.H.
        • Mills P.
        • Duszak Jr R.
        • et al.
        Medical 3D printing cost-savings in orthopedic and maxillofacial surgery: cost analysis of operating room time saved with 3D printed anatomic models and surgical guides.
        Acad Radiol. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.08.011
        • Modabber A.
        • Legros C.
        • Rana M.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of computer-assisted jaw reconstruction with free vascularized fibular flap compared to conventional surgery: a clinical pilot study.
        Int J Med Robot. 2012; 8: 215-220
        • Van den Bulte C.
        • Moenaert R.K.
        The effects of R&D team co-location on communication patterns among R&D, marketing, and manufacturing.
        Manag Sci. 1998; 44: S1-S18
        • Chepelev L.
        • Wake N.
        • Ryan J.
        • et al.
        Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 3D printing Special Interest Group (SIG): guidelines for medical 3D printing and appropriateness for clinical scenarios.
        3D Print Med. 2018; 4: 1-38
        • Huotilainen E.
        • Paloheimo M.
        • Salmi M.
        • et al.
        Imaging requirements for medical applications of additive manufacturing.
        Acta Radiol. 2014; 55: 78-85
        • Bannas P.
        • Habermann C.R.
        • Jung C.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of state-of-the-art MDCT scanners without gantry tilt in patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer.
        Eur J Radiol. 2012; 81: 3947-3952
        • Marcus R.P.
        • Morris J.M.
        • Matsumoto J.M.
        • et al.
        Implementation of iterative metal artifact reduction in the pre-planning-procedure of three-dimensional physical modeling.
        3D Print Med. 2017; 3: 5
        • Katsura M.
        • Sato J.
        • Akahane M.
        • et al.
        Current and novel techniques for metal artifact reduction at CT: practical guide for radiologists.
        Radiographics. 2018; 38: 450-461
        • Mitsouras D.
        • Liacouras P.
        • Imanzadeh A.
        • et al.
        Medical 3D printing for the radiologist.
        Radiographics. 2015; 35: 1965-1988
        • Sharma N.
        • Aggarwal L.M.
        Automated medical image segmentation techniques.
        J Med Phys. 2010; 35: 3
        • Virzì A.
        • Muller C.O.
        • Marret J.-B.
        • et al.
        Comprehensive review of 3D segmentation software tools for MRI usable for pelvic surgery planning.
        J Digit Imaging. 2019; 33: 99-110
        • Huotilainen E.
        • Jaanimets R.
        • Valášek J.
        • et al.
        Inaccuracies in additive manufactured medical skull models caused by the DICOM to STL conversion process.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014; 42: e259-e265
        • Calignano F.
        • Galati M.
        • Iuliano L.
        • et al.
        Design of additively manufactured structures for biomedical applications: a review of the additive manufacturing processes applied to the biomedical sector.
        J Healthc Eng. 2019; 2019: 9748212
        • Stansbury J.W.
        • Idacavage M.J.
        3D printing with polymers: challenges among expanding options and opportunities.
        Dent Mater. 2016; 32: 54-64
        • Culmone C.
        • Smit G.
        • Breedveld P.
        Additive manufacturing of medical instruments: a state-of-the-art review.
        Addit Manuf. 2019; 27: 461-473
        • Odeh M.
        • Levin D.
        • Inziello J.
        • et al.
        Methods for verification of 3D printed anatomic model accuracy using cardiac models as an example.
        3D Print Med. 2019; 5: 6
        • Arce K.
        • Waris S.
        • Alexander A.E.
        • et al.
        Novel patient-specific 3-dimensional printed fixation tray for mandibular reconstruction with fibular free flaps.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 76: 2211-2219
        • Ettinger K.S.
        • Alexander A.E.
        • Arce K.
        Computed tomographic angiography perforator localization for virtual surgical planning of osteocutaneous fibular free flaps in head and neck reconstruction.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 76: 2220-2230