Sculpting the future: A narrative review of 3D printing in plastic surgery and prosthetic devices.

Background and Aims: The advent of 3D printing has revolutionized plastic surgery and prosthetic devices, providing personalized solutions for patients with traumatic injuries, deformities, and appearance-related conditions. This review offers a comprehensive overview of 3D printing's applications, advantages, limitations, and future prospects in these fields. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus for studies on 3D printing in plastic surgery. Results: 3D printing has significantly contributed to personalized medical interventions, with benefits like enhanced design flexibility, reduced production time, and improved patient outcomes. Using computer-aided design (CAD) software, precise models tailored to a patient's anatomy can be created, ensuring better fit, functionality, and comfort. 3D printing allows for intricate geometries, leading to improved aesthetic outcomes and patient-specific prosthetic limbs and orthoses. The historical development of 3D printing, key milestones, and breakthroughs are highlighted. Recent progress in bioprinting and tissue engineering shows promising applications in regenerative medicine and transplantation. The integration of AI and automation with 3D printing enhances surgical planning and outcomes. Emerging trends in patient-specific treatment planning and precision medicine are potential game-changers. However, challenges like technical considerations, economic implications, and ethical issues exist. Addressing these challenges and advancing research in materials, design processes, and long-term outcomes are crucial for widespread adoption. Conclusion: The review underscores the increasing adoption of 3D printing in healthcare and its impact on plastic surgery and prosthetic devices. It emphasizes the importance of evaluating the current state and addressing knowledge gaps through future research to foster further advancements.

Medicaid expansion and palliative care for advanced-stage liver cancer.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid expansion (ME) has contributed to transforming the United States healthcare system. However, its effect on palliative care of primary liver cancers remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the association between ME and the receipt of palliative treatment in advanced-stage liver cancer. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage IV hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma were identified from the National Cancer Database and divided into pre-expansion (2010-2013) and postexpansion (2015-2019) cohorts. Logistic regression identified predictors of palliative treatment. Difference-in-difference (DID) analysis assessed changes in palliative care use between patients living in ME states and patients living in non-ME states. RESULTS: Among 12,516 patients, 4582 (36.6%) were diagnosed before expansion, and 7934 (63.6%) were diagnosed after expansion. Overall, rates of palliative treatment increased after ME (18.1% [pre-expansion] vs 22.3% [postexpansion]; P < .001) and are more pronounced among ME states. Before expansion, only cancer type and education attainment were associated with the receipt of palliative treatment. Conversely, after expansion, race, insurance, location, cancer type, and ME status (odds ratio [OR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.44; P = .018) were all associated with palliative care. Interestingly, the odds were higher if treatment involved receipt of pain management (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.23-2.43; P = .006). Adjusted DID analysis confirmed increased rates of palliative treatment among patients living in ME states relative to non-ME states (DID, 4.4%; 95% CI, 1.2-7.7; P = .008); however, racial disparities persist (White, 5.6; 95% CI, 1.4-9.8; P = .009; minority, 2.6; 95% CI, -2.5 to 7.6; P = .333). CONCLUSION: The implementation of ME contributed to increased rates of palliative treatment for patients residing in ME states after expansion. However, racial disparities persist even after ME, resulting in inequitable access to palliative care.

Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening Rates Among Adults With and Without Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities may face barriers in accessing healthcare, including cancer screening and detection services. We sought to assess the association of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) with breast cancer screening rates. METHODS: Data from 2018 to 2020 was used to identify screening-eligible individuals from Medicare Standard Analytic Files. Adults aged 65-79 years who did not have a previous diagnosis of breast cancer were included. Multivariable regression was used to analyze the differences in breast cancer screening rates among individuals with and without IDD. RESULTS: Among 9,383,349 Medicare beneficiaries, 11,265 (0.1%) individuals met the criteria for IDD. Of note, individuals with IDD were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (90.5% vs. 87.3%), have a Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≤ 2 (66.2% vs. 85.5%), and reside in a low social vulnerability index neighborhood (35.7% vs. 34.4%). IDD was associated with reduced odds of undergoing breast cancer screening (odds ratio (OR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.80; p < 0.001). Breast cancer screening rates in individuals with IDD were further influenced by social vulnerability and belonging to a racial/ethnic minority. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with IDD may face additional barriers to breast cancer screening. The combination of IDD and social vulnerability placed patients at particularly high risk of not being screened for breast cancer.

Survival Benefit Relative to Treatment Modalities Among Patients with Very Early Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: an Analysis of the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) has been considered a potential curative treatment for patients with very early intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and cirrhosis, yet the survival benefit of LT has not been well defined. This study aimed to compare the long-term survival outcomes of patients who underwent LT with that of individuals who received resection and non-curative intent treatment (non-CIT). METHODS: Patients who underwent LT, hepatectomy, and non-CIT between 2004 and 2018 were included in the National Cancer Database. Survival benefits of LT over resection and non-CIT were analyzed relative to overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 863 patients, 54 (6.3%) underwent LT, while 342 (39.6%) underwent surgical resection, and 467 (54.1%) received non-CIT, respectively. While the rates of non-CIT increased over time, the percentages of LT remained consistent during the study period. LT patients had similar 5-year OS to individuals who underwent resection (referent, resection: LT, HR 0.95, 95%CI 0.84-1.58, p=0.84). In contrast, 5-year OS was better among patients who underwent LT versus individuals who had non-CIT after controlling other variables using propensity score overlapping weighting (5-year OS, LT 57.1% vs. LR 25.8%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of very early ICC patients who underwent LT were similar to individuals who underwent hepatectomy, but better than patients treated with non-CIT. LT should be may be a consideration as a treatment option for patients with early stage ICC who are unsuitable candidates for resection.

Disparities in Liver Transplantation Rates and Outcomes Among Adults with and without Mental Illnesses.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mental illnesses face unique disparities in access to liver transplantation. We sought to compare rates of evaluation, transplantation, and post-transplant outcomes among patients with and without mental illnesses. METHODS: Patients aged 18-75 with decompensated cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma were identified from the Medicare Standard Analytic Files from 2014-2020. Regression analyses were used to examine the association between mental illness and evaluation by a transplant surgeon, receipt of transplant, and post-transplant outcomes. RESULTS: Among 274,252 liver transplant candidates, 34,269 (12.5%) patients had depression and/or anxiety disorders and 8,184 (3.0%) had severe mental illnesses. The proportion of patients evaluated by a transplant surgeon was lower among patients with severe mental illnesses (14.1%), as well as individuals with depression and/or anxiety disorders (16.0%) versus the general population (18.5%) (p < 0.001). Similarly, utilization of transplantation rates was lower among patients with severe mental illness (1.1%) compared with depression and/or anxiety disorders (2.0%), as well as individuals without mental illnesses (3.8%) (p < 0.001). On multivariable regression analyses, mental illness remained independently associated with lower odds of evaluation and transplantation among patients with mental illnesses. In contrast, on adjusted analyses there were no differences in postoperative outcomes including perioperative complications, biliary complications, graft rejection, graft failure, and overall survival. CONCLUSION: Despite lower rates of evaluation and transplant, patients with mental illnesses did not experience differences in most postoperative outcomes compared with patients without a mental illness.