Background 3D printed patient-specific anatomical models have been applied clinically to orthopaedic care for surgical planning and patient education. The estimated cost and print time per model for 3D printers have not yet been compared with clinically representative models across multiple printing technologies. This study investigates six commercially-available 3D printers: Prusa i3 MK3S, Formlabs Form 2, Formlabs Form 3, LulzBot TAZ 6, Stratasys F370, and Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy. Methods Seven representative orthopaedic standard tessellation models derived from CT scans were imported into the respective slicing software for each 3D printer. For each printer and corresponding print setting, the slicing software provides a print time and material use estimate. Material quantity was used to calculate estimated model cost. Print settings investigated were infill percentage, layer height, and model orientation on the print bed. The slicing software investigated are Cura LulzBot Edition 3.6.20, GrabCAD Print 1.43, PreForm 3.4.6, and PrusaSlicer 2.2.0. Results The effect of changing infill between 15% and 20% on estimated print time and material use was negligible. Orientation of the model has considerable impact on time and cost with worst-case differences being as much as 39.30% added print time and 34.56% added costs. Averaged across all investigated settings, horizontal model orientation on the print bed minimizes estimated print time for all 3D printers, while vertical model orientation minimizes cost with the exception of Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy, in which horizontal orientation also minimized cost. Decreasing layer height for all investigated printers increased estimated print time and decreased estimated cost with the exception of Stratasys F370, in which cost increased. The difference in material cost was two orders of magnitude between the least and most-expensive printers. The difference in build rate (cm3/min) was one order of magnitude between the fastest and slowest printers. Conclusions All investigated 3D printers in this study have the potential for clinical utility. Print time and print cost are dependent on orientation of anatomy and the printers and settings selected. Cost-effective clinical 3D printing of anatomic models should consider an appropriate printer for the complexity of the anatomy and the experience of the printer technicians.

BackgroundModern low-cost 3D printing technologies offer the promise of access to surgical tools in resource scarce areas, however optimal designs for manufacturing have not yet been established. We explore how the optimization of 3D printing parameters when manufacturing polylactic acid filament based Army-Navy retractors vastly increases the strength of retractors, and investigate sources of variability in retractor strength, material cost, printing time, and parameter limitations.MethodsStandard retractors were printed from various polylactic acid filament spools intra-manufacturer and inter-manufacturer to measure variability in retractor strength. Printing parameters were systematically varied to determine optimum printing parameters. These parameters include retractor width, thickness, infill percentage, infill geometry, perimeter number, and a reinforced joint design. Estimated retractor mass from computer models allows us to estimate material cost.ResultsWe found statistically significant differences in retractor strength between spools of the same manufacturer and between manufacturers. We determined the true strength optimized retractor to have 30% infill, 3 perimeters, 0.25 in. thickness, 0.75 in. width, and has “Triangle” infill geometry and reinforced joints, failing at more than 15X the threshold for clinically excessive retraction and costs $1.25 USD.ConclusionsThe optimization of 3D printed Army-Navy retractors greatly improve the efficacy of this instrument and expedite the adoption of 3D printing technology in many diverse fields in medicine not necessarily limited to resource poor settings.

Background: Fused deposition modeling 3D printing is used in medicine for diverse purposes such as creating patient-specific anatomical models and surgical instruments. For use in the sterile surgical field, it is necessary to understand the mechanical behavior of these prints across 3D printing materials and after autoclaving. It has been previously understood that steam sterilization weakens polylactic acid, however, annealing heat treatment of polylactic acid increases its crystallinity and mechanical strength. We aim to identify an optimal and commercially available 3D printing process that minimizes distortion after annealing and autoclaving and to quantify mechanical strength after these interventions. Methods: Thirty millimeters cubes with four different infill geometries were 3D printed and subjected to hot waterbath annealing then immediate autoclaving. Seven commercially available 3D printing materials were tested to understand their mechanical behavior after intervention. The dimensions in the X, Y, and Z axes were measured before and after annealing, and again after subsequent autoclaving. Standard and strength-optimized Army-Navy retractor designs were printed using the 3D printing material and infill geometry that deformed the least. These retractors were subjected to annealing and autoclaving interventions and tested for differences in mechanical strength.

Authors NA and JC contributed equally to this study and their names have been listed in alphabetical order of their last name.

Background3D printed patient-specific anatomical models have been applied clinically to orthopaedic care for surgical planning and patient education. The estimated cost and print time per model for 3D printers have not yet been compared with clinically representative models across multiple printing technologies. This study investigates six commercially-available 3D printers: Prusa i3 MK3S, Formlabs Form 2, Formlabs Form 3, LulzBot TAZ 6, Stratasys F370, and Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy.MethodsSeven representative orthopaedic standard tessellation models derived from CT scans were imported into the respective slicing software for each 3D printer. For each printer and corresponding print setting, the slicing software provides a print time and material use estimate. Material quantity was used to calculate estimated model cost. Print settings investigated were infill percentage, layer height, and model orientation on the print bed. The slicing software investigated are Cura LulzBot Edition 3.6.20, GrabCAD Print 1.43, PreForm 3.4.6, and PrusaSlicer 2.2.0.ResultsThe effect of changing infill between 15% and 20% on estimated print time and material use was negligible. Orientation of the model has considerable impact on time and cost with worst-case differences being as much as 39.30% added print time and 34.56% added costs. Averaged across all investigated settings, horizontal model orientation on the print bed minimizes estimated print time for all 3D printers, while vertical model orientation minimizes cost with the exception of Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy, in which horizontal orientation also minimized cost. Decreasing layer height for all investigated printers increased estimated print time and decreased estimated cost with the exception of Stratasys F370, in which cost increased. The difference in material cost was two orders of magnitude between the least and most-expensive printers. The difference in build rate (cm3/min) was one order of magnitude between the fastest and slowest printers.ConclusionsAll investigated 3D printers in this study have the potential for clinical utility. Print time and print cost are dependent on orientation of anatomy and the printers and settings selected. Cost-effective clinical 3D printing of anatomic models should consider an appropriate printer for the complexity of the anatomy and the experience of the printer technicians.

Background3D printed patient-specific anatomical models have been applied clinically to orthopaedic care for surgical planning and patient education. The estimated cost and print time per model for 3D printers have not yet been compared with clinically representative models across multiple printing technologies. This study investigates six commercially-available 3D printers: Prusa i3 MK3S, Formlabs Form 2, Formlabs Form 3, LulzBot TAZ 6, Stratasys F370, and Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy.MethodsSeven representative orthopaedic standard tessellation models derived from CT scans were imported into the respective slicing software for each 3D printer. For each printer and corresponding print setting, the slicing software provides a print time and material use estimate. Material quantity was used to calculate estimated model cost. Print settings investigated were infill percentage, layer height, and model orientation on the print bed. The slicing software investigated are Cura LulzBot Edition 3.6.20, GrabCAD Print 1.43, PreForm 3.4.6, and PrusaSlicer 2.2.0.ResultsThe effect of changing infill between 15% and 20% on estimated print time and material use was negligible. Orientation of the model has considerable impact on time and cost with worst-case differences being as much as 39.30% added print time and 34.56% added costs. Averaged across all investigated settings, horizontal model orientation on the print bed minimizes estimated print time for all 3D printers, while vertical model orientation minimizes cost with the exception of Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy, in which horizontal orientation also minimized cost. Decreasing layer height for all investigated printers increased estimated print time and decreased estimated cost with the exception of Stratasys F370, in which cost increased. The difference in material cost was two orders of magnitude between the least and most-expensive printers. The difference in build rate (cm3/min) was one order of magnitude between the fastest and slowest printers.ConclusionsAll investigated 3D printers in this study have the potential for clinical utility. Print time and print cost are dependent on orientation of anatomy and the printers and settings selected. Cost-effective clinical 3D printing of anatomic models should consider an appropriate printer for the complexity of the anatomy and the experience of the printer technicians.

Purpose To determine the rate of cytologic and diagnostic adequacy and identify features associated with suboptimal tissue sampling in ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (US‐FNA) of suspected nodal disease in thyroid cancer patients. Methods A single‐institution pathology database was queried for lymph node FNA reports in thyroid cancer patients from 2014 to 2019. Charts were reviewed for demographics, body mass index (BMI), prior thyroidectomy, cancer type, and subsequent surgery. Ultrasound images were retrospectively reviewed for location, size, depth from skin, cystic components, macrocalcification, echogenic foci, and internal vascularity score. Pathology reports were categorized as cellular and diagnostic, hypocellular/acellular but diagnostic with abnormal cells or thyroglobulin levels, or hypocellular and nondiagnostic. Correlation and multivariate regression analyses were performed. Results Initial query yielded 552 lesions in 343 subjects. Following exclusion, 377 lesions in 255 subjects were included. Mean patient age was 48.5 years (14–90), BMI 28.5, and 66.7% female and 33.3% male. The majority (95.3%) had papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC); and 65.5% had prior thyroidectomy. 17.7% of lesions were hypocellular/acellular (suboptimal), and 5.6% nondiagnostic. Patient factors had no association (P >.05). Right‐sidedness and hypovascularity were associated with hypocellularity (P <.05). Higher long/short‐axis ratio and cystic foci were weakly associated. On multivariate analysis, right‐sidedness (odds ratio [OR] 1.99; confidence interval [CI] 1.10–3.57) and lower vascularity score (OR 0.54; CI 0.39–0.73) were predictive of suboptimal sampling. Conclusion US‐FNA has high diagnostic yield and cellular sample rate. Lesion size had no effect. Right‐sidedness and lower vascularity scores were predictive of suboptimal tissue. Identifying these features and expected sample adequacy rates can inform management decisions for thyroid cancer patients with cervical lymphadenopathy.

Background3D printed patient-specific anatomical models have been applied clinically to orthopaedic care for surgical planning and patient education. The estimated cost and print time per model for 3D printers have not yet been compared with clinically representative models across multiple printing technologies. This study investigates six commercially available 3D printers: Prusa i3 MK3S, Formlabs Form 2, Formlabs Form 3, LulzBot TAZ 6, Stratasys F370, and Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy.MethodsSeven representative orthopaedic standard tessellation models derived from anonymized CT scans were imported into the respective slicing software for each 3D printer. For each 3D printer and corresponding print setting, the slicing software provides a computed print time and material use estimate. Material quantity was used to calculate estimated model cost. Print settings investigated were infill percentage, layer height, and model orientation on the print bed. The slicing software investigated are Cura LulzBot Edition 3.6.20, GrabCAD Print 1.43, PreForm 3.4.6, and PrusaSlicer 2.2.0.ResultsThe effect of changing infill between 15% and 20% on estimated print time and material use appears to be negligible. Orientation of the model has considerable impact on time and cost with worst-case differences being as much as 39.30% added print time and 34.56% added costs. Averaged across all investigated settings, horizontal model orientation on the print bed minimizes estimated print time for all 3D printers, while vertical model orientation generally minimizes cost with the exception of Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy, in which horizontal model orientation also minimized cost. Decreasing layer height for all investigated 3D printers increased estimated print time and decreased estimated cost with the exception of Stratasys F370, in which cost increased. The difference in material cost was approximately two orders of magnitude between the least and most-expensive printers.ConclusionsAll investigated 3D printers in this study have the potential for clinical utility. Print time and print cost are dependent on orientation of anatomy and the 3D printers and settings selected. Cost-effective clinical 3D printing of anatomic models should consider an appropriate printer for the complexity of the anatomy and the experience of the printer technicians.