Three‐dimensional (3D) printing or additive manufacturing is a new technology that has seen rapid development in recent years with decreasing costs. 3D printing allows the creation of customised, finely detailed constructs. Technological improvements, increased printer availability, decreasing costs, improved cell culture techniques, and biomaterials have enabled complex, novel and individualised medical treatments to be developed. Although the long‐term goal of printing biocompatible organs has not yet been achieved, major advances have been made utilising 3D printing in biomedical engineering. In this literature review, we discuss the role of 3D printing in relation to urological surgery. We highlight the common printing methods employed and show examples of clinical urological uses. Currently, 3D printing can be used in urology for education of trainees and patients, surgical planning, creation of urological equipment, and bioprinting. In this review, we summarise the current applications of 3D‐printing technology in these areas of urology.

Three-dimensional (3D) printed prostate cancer models are an emerging adjunct for urological surgical planning and patient education, however published methods are costly which limits their translation into clinical practice. Multi-colour extrusion fused deposition modelling (FDM) can be used to create 3D prostate cancer models of a quality comparable to more expensive techniques at a fraction of the cost. Three different 3D printing methods were used to create the same 3D prostate model: FDM, colour jet printing (CJP) and material jetting (MJ), with a calculated cost per model of USD 20, USD 200 and USD 250 respectively. When taking into account the cost, the FDM prostate models are the most preferred 3D printing method by surgeons. This method could be used to manufacture low-cost 3D printed models across other medical disciplines.

Craniofacial prostheses are commonly used to restore aesthetics for those suffering from malformed, damaged, or missing tissue. Traditional fabrication is costly, uncomfortable for the patient, and laborious; involving several hours of hand-crafting by a prosthetist, with the results highly dependent on their skill level. In this paper, we present an advanced manufacturing framework employing three-dimensional scanning, computer-aided design, and computer-aided manufacturing to efficiently fabricate patient-specific ear prostheses. Three-dimensional scans were taken of ears of six participants using a structured light scanner. These were processed using software to model the prostheses and 3-part negative moulds, which were fabricated on a low-cost desktop 3D printer, and cast with silicone to produce ear prostheses. The average cost was approximately $3 for consumables and $116 for 2 h of labour. An injection method with smoothed 3D printed ABS moulds was also developed at a cost of approximately $155 for consumables and labour. This contrasts with traditional hand-crafted prostheses which range from $2,000 to $7,000 and take around 14 to 15 h of labour. This advanced manufacturing framework provides potential for non-invasive, low cost, and high-accuracy alternative to current techniques, is easily translatable to other prostheses, and has potential for further cost reduction.

The adoption of additive manufacturing (AM) techniques into the medical space has revolutionised tissue engineering. Depending upon the tissue type, specific AM approaches are capable of closely matching the physical and biological tissue attributes, to guide tissue regeneration. For hard tissue such as bone, powder bed fusion (PBF) techniques have significant potential, as they are capable of fabricating materials that can match the mechanical requirements necessary to maintain bone functionality and support regeneration. This review focuses on the PBF techniques that utilize laser sintering for creating scaffolds for bone tissue engineering (BTE) applications. Optimal scaffold requirements are explained, ranging from material biocompatibility and bioactivity, to generating specific architectures to recapitulate the porosity, interconnectivity, and mechanical properties of native human bone. The main objective of the review is to outline the most common materials processed using PBF in the context of BTE; initially outlining the most common polymers, including polyamide, polycaprolactone, polyethylene, and polyetheretherketone. Subsequent sections investigate the use of metals and ceramics in similar systems for BTE applications. The last section explores how composite materials can be used. Within each material section, the benefits and shortcomings are outlined, including their mechanical and biological performance, as well as associated printing parameters. The framework provided can be applied to the development of new, novel materials or laser-based approaches to ultimately generate bone tissue analogues or for guiding bone regeneration.

No abstract