Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-ffbbcc459-z46zv Total loading time: 0.236 Render date: 2022-03-10T02:51:37.443Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }
  • English
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Article contents

Evaluation of 3D printing costs in surgery: a systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2020

Carole Serrano ,
Sarah Fontenay ,
Hélène van den Brink ,
Judith Pineau ,
Patrice Prognon  and
Nicolas Martelli Open the ORCID record for Nicolas Martelli[Opens in a new window]
Carole Serrano
Affiliation:
University Paris-Saclay, GRADES, Faculty of Pharmacy, 5 rue Jean-Baptiste Clément, 92290 Châtenay-Malabry, France
Sarah Fontenay
Affiliation:
Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France
Hélène van den Brink
Affiliation:
University Paris-Saclay, GRADES, Faculty of Pharmacy, 5 rue Jean-Baptiste Clément, 92290 Châtenay-Malabry, France
Judith Pineau
Affiliation:
Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France
Patrice Prognon
Affiliation:
Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France
Nicolas Martelli*
Affiliation:
University Paris-Saclay, GRADES, Faculty of Pharmacy, 5 rue Jean-Baptiste Clément, 92290 Châtenay-Malabry, France Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France
*
Author for correspondence: Nicolas Martelli, E-mail: nicolas.martelli@egp.aphp.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The use of three-dimensional (3D) printing in surgery is expanding and there is a focus on comprehensively evaluating the clinical impact of this technology. However, although additional costs are one of the main limitations to its use, little is known about its economic impact. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify the costs associated with its use and highlight the first quantitative data available.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted in the PubMed and Embase databases and in the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) at the University of York. Studies that reported an assessment of the costs associated with the use of 3D printing for surgical application and published between 2009 and 2019, in English or French, were included.

Results

Nine studies were included in our review. Nine types of costs were identified, the three main ones being printing material costs (n = 6), staff costs (n = 3), and operating room costs (n = 3). The printing cost ranged from less than U.S. dollars (USD) 1 to USD 146 (in USD 2019 values) depending on the criteria used to calculate this cost. Three studies evaluated the potential savings generated by the use of 3D printing technology in surgery, based on operating time reduction.

Conclusion

This literature review highlights the lack of reliable economic data on 3D printing technology. Nevertheless, this review makes it possible to identify expenditures or items that should be considered in order to carry out more robust studies.

Keywords

Costs and cost analysisPrintingThree-dimensionalSurgerySystematic review
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 349 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hodgdon, T, Danrad, R, Patel, MJ, Smith, SE, Richardson, ML, Ballard, DH, et al. Logistics of three-dimensional printing: Primer for radiologists. Acad Radiol. 2018;25:40–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tack, P, Victor, J, Gemmel, P, Annemans, L. 3D-printing Techniques in a medical setting: A systematic literature review. Biomed Eng Online. 2016;15(1). doi: 10.1186/s12938-016-0236-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano, C, van den Brink, H, Pineau, J, Prognon, P, Martelli, N. Benefits of 3D printing applications in jaw reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019;47:1387–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diment, LE, Thompson, MS, Bergmann, JHM. Clinical efficacy and effectiveness of 3D printing: A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witowski, J, Sitkowski, M, Zuzak, T, Coles-Black, J, Chuen, J, Major, P, et al. From ideas to long-term studies: 3D printing clinical trials review. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018;13(9):1473–1478. doi: 10.1007/s11548-018-1793-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chow, LK, Cheung, LK. The usefulness of stereomodels in maxillofacial surgical management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65:2260–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liacouras, P, Garnes, J, Roman, N, Petrich, A, Grant, GT. Designing and manufacturing an auricular prosthesis using computed tomography, 3–dimensional photographic imaging, and additive manufacturing: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;105:78–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madrazo, I, Zamorano, C, Magallón, E, Valenzuela, T, Ibarra, A, Salgado-Ceballos, H, et al. Stereolithography in spine pathology: A 2-case report. Surg Neurol. 2009;72, 272–75; discussion 275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, DJ, Edwards, G, Mainprize, JG, Antonyshyn, O. Optimizing craniofacial osteotomies: Applications of haptic and rapid prototyping technology. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66:1766–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schardt, C, Adams, MB, Owens, T, Keitz, S, Fontelo, P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, HC, Lauer, JA, Tran, BX, Teerawattananon, Y, Jit, M. Adjusting for inflation and currency changes within health economic studies. Value Health. 2019;22:1026–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, Carswell, C, Moher, D, Greenberg, D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMC Med. 2013;11:80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sackett, DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1989;95:2S–4S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, BJ, Park, EP, Christensen, BJ, Danrad, R. On-site 3-dimensional printing and preoperative adaptation decrease operative time for mandibular fracture repair. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76:1950.e1–0.e8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legocki, AT, Duffy-Peter, A, Scott, AR. Benefits and limitations of entry-level 3-dimensional printing of maxillofacial skeletal models. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;143:389–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, SS, Copeland-Halperin, LR, Kaminsky, AJ, Li, J, Lodhi, FK, Miraliakbari, R. Computer-aided surgical simulation in head and neck reconstruction: A cost comparison among traditional, In-house, and commercial options. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2018;34:341–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, Y, Gao, Q, Du, S, Chen, Z, Fu, J, Chen, B, et al. Fabrication of cerebral aneurysm simulator with a desktop 3D printer. Sci Rep. 2017;7:44301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rankin, TM, Giovinco, NA, Cucher, DJ, Watts, G, Hurwitz, B, Armstrong, DG. Three-dimensional printing surgical instruments: Are we there yet? J Surg Res. 2014;189:193–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Resnick, CM, Inverso, G, Wrzosek, M, Padwa, BL, Kaban, LB, Peacock, ZS. Is there a difference in cost between standard and virtual surgical planning for orthognathic surgery? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74:1827–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scerrati, A, Trovalusci, F, Albanese, A, Ponticelli, GS, Tagliaferri, V, Sturiale, CL, et al. A workflow to generate physical 3D models of cerebral aneurysms applying open source freeware for CAD modeling and 3D printing. Interdiscip Neurosurg Adv Tech Case Manage. 2019;17:1–6.Google Scholar
Witowski, JS, Pedziwiatr, M, Major, P, Budzynski, A. Cost-effective, personalized, 3D–printed liver model for preoperative planning before laparoscopic liver hemihepatectomy for colorectal cancer metastases. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017;12(12):2047–2054. doi: 10.1007/s11548-017-1527-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, M, Li, C, Li, Y, Zhao, Y, Wei, X, Zhang, G, et al. Application of 3D rapid prototyping technology in posterior corrective surgery for Lenke 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94:e582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballard, DH, Mills, P, Duszak, R, Weisman, JA, Rybicki, FJ, Woodard, PK. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2019.08.011.Google ScholarPubMed
Sampietro-Colom, L, Lach, K, Pasternack, I, Wasserfallen, J-B, Cicchetti, A, Marchetti, M, et al. Guiding principles for good practices in hospital-based health technology assessment units. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:457–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roussel, C, Carbonneil, C, Audry, A, participants of Giens XXXI, Round Table No. 4. Organisational impact: Definition and assessment methods for medical devices. Therapie. 2016;71, 69–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, TM, Gregory, J, Sledge, J, Allard, R, Mir, O. Surgery guided by mixed reality: Presentation of a proof of concept. Acta Orthop. 2018;89:480–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Serrano et al. supplementary material

Serrano et al. supplementary material 1

Download Serrano et al. supplementary material(File)
File 65 KB
Supplementary material: File

Serrano et al. supplementary material

Serrano et al. supplementary material 2

Download Serrano et al. supplementary material(File)
File 22 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Serrano et al. supplementary material

Serrano et al. supplementary material 3

Download Serrano et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 50 KB
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Evaluation of 3D printing costs in surgery: a systematic review
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Evaluation of 3D printing costs in surgery: a systematic review
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Evaluation of 3D printing costs in surgery: a systematic review
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *