3D-printed, patient-specific DIEP flap templates for preoperative planning in breast reconstruction: a prospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Modern imaging technologies, such as computed tomographic angiography (CTA), can be useful for preoperative assessment in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap surgery. Planning perforator flap design can lead to improved surgical efficiency. However, current imaging modalities are limited by being displayed on a two-dimensional (2D) surface. In contrast, a 3D-printed model provides tactile feedback that facilitates superior understanding. Hence, we have 3D-printed patient-specific deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) templates, in an affordable and convenient manner, for preoperative planning. METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients undergoing 25 immediate or delayed post-mastectomy autologous breast reconstruction with DIEP or muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis (MS-TRAM) flaps are recruited prospectively. Using free, open-source softwares (3D Slicer, Autodesk MeshMixer, and Cura) and desktop 3D printers (Ultimaker 3E and Moment), we created a template based on a patient's abdominal wall anatomy from CTA, with holes and lines indicating the position of perforators, their intramuscular course and the DIEA pedicle. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 52 [38-67]. There were 15 immediate and 10 delayed reconstructions. 3D printing time took mean 18 hours and 123.7 g of plastic filament, which calculates to a mean material cost of AUD 8.25. DIEP templates accurately identified the perforators and reduced intraoperative perforator identification by 7.29 minutes (P=0.02). However, the intramuscular dissection time was not affected (P=0.34). Surgeons found the template useful for preoperative marking (8.6/10) and planning (7.9/10), but not for intramuscular dissection (5.9/10). There were no immediate flap-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our 3D-printed, patient-specific DIEP template is accurate, significantly reduces intraoperative perforator identification time and, hence, may be a useful tool for preoperative planning in autologous breast reconstruction.

The accuracy of clinical 3D printing in reconstructive surgery: literature review and in vivo validation study.

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 in vivo validation study of our 3D printing technique was undertaken using unprocessed chicken radius bones (Gallus gallus domesticus). 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 in vivo 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<10-4) between the CT group and the latter SEG and 3DP groups indicating that most of the error is introduced during image segmentation stage.

A systematic review of intraoperative process mapping in surgery.

Process mapping has been identified as a strategy to improve surgical efficiency but has been inconsistently applied in the literature and underutilised in surgical practice. In this journal, we recently described our utilisation of these approaches when applied to breast reconstruction. We showed that in surgery as complex as autologous breast reconstruction, process mapping can improve efficiency, and may improve surgical teaching, education and audit. The intraoperative period specifically is an area that can be applied not only to breast reconstruction, but to a much broader range of surgical procedures. A systematic review was undertaken of the databases Ovid MEDLINE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Embase and PsychINFO. Manual searching of the references from articles identified was also conducted. Data items relating to the review aims were extracted from articles' methods, applications, and outcomes. A descriptive analysis was carried out to synthesise the information on the current usage of process mapping in the intraoperative period. Seventeen of 1,488 studies were eligible for review, with all of non-randomised study design. Studies had overlap in components of the intraoperative period to which process mapping was applied. Common areas of improvement were identified. Outcome measures were assessed in ten studies that implemented interventions based on the improvement areas to increase surgical efficiency. As such, process mapping has been used as part of larger quality improvement methods, albeit with inconsistent nomenclature, to improve surgical efficiency. While it has been applied to a range of surgical specialties, there is a lack of application to the surgical component of the intraoperative period. Greater consistency in the reporting and description of process mapping will enable further research for evidence of its benefits.