Clinical situations for which 3D printing is considered an appropriate representation or extension of data contained in a medical imaging examination: pediatric congenital heart disease conditions

Justin R Ryan; Reena Ghosh; Greg Sturgeon; Arafat Ali; Elsa Arribas; Eric Braden; Seetharam Chadalavada; Leonid Chepelev; Summer Decker; Yu-Hui Huang; Ciprian Ionita; Joonhyuk Lee; Peter Liacouras; Jayanthi Parthasarathy; Prashanth Ravi; Michael Sandelier; Kelsey Sommer; Nicole Wake; Frank Rybicki; David Ballard

doi:10.1186/s41205-023-00199-3

Clinical situations for which 3D printing is considered an appropriate representation or extension of data contained in a medical imaging examination: pediatric congenital heart disease conditions

3D Print Med. 2024 Jan 29;10(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s41205-023-00199-3.

Authors

Justin R Ryan^{1

2}, Reena Ghosh³, Greg Sturgeon⁴, Arafat Ali⁵, Elsa Arribas⁶, Eric Braden⁷, Seetharam Chadalavada⁵, Leonid Chepelev⁸, Summer Decker^{9

10}, Yu-Hui Huang¹¹, Ciprian Ionita¹², Joonhyuk Lee⁵, Peter Liacouras¹³, Jayanthi Parthasarathy¹⁴, Prashanth Ravi⁵, Michael Sandelier¹⁵, Kelsey Sommer¹⁶, Nicole Wake^{17

18}, Frank Rybicki¹⁹, David Ballard²⁰

Affiliations

¹ Webster Foundation 3D Innovations Lab, Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. [email protected].
² Department of Neurological Surgery, UC San Diego Health, La Jolla, CA, USA. [email protected].
³ Department of Cardiac Surgery, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
⁴ Duke Children's Pediatric & Congenital Heart Center, Durham, NC, USA.
⁵ Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
⁶ Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
⁷ Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, AR, USA.
⁸ Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
⁹ Department of Radiology, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, USA.
¹⁰ Tampa General Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA.
¹¹ Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
¹² Department of Biomedical Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
¹³ Department of Radiology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
¹⁴ Department of Radiology, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA.
¹⁵ Department of Radiology - Advanced Reality Lab, James A. Haley VA Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA.
¹⁶ Canon Medical Informatics, Minnetonka, MN, USA.
¹⁷ Research and Scientific Affairs, GE HealthCare, New York, NY, USA.
¹⁸ Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R) and Bernard and Irene, Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
¹⁹ Department of Radiology, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
²⁰ Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA.

Abstract

Background: The use of medical 3D printing (focusing on anatomical modeling) has continued to grow since the Radiological Society of North America's (RSNA) 3D Printing Special Interest Group (3DPSIG) released its initial guideline and appropriateness rating document in 2018. The 3DPSIG formed a focused writing group to provide updated appropriateness ratings for 3D printing anatomical models across a variety of congenital heart disease. Evidence-based- (where available) and expert-consensus-driven appropriateness ratings are provided for twenty-eight congenital heart lesion categories.

Methods: A structured literature search was conducted to identify all relevant articles using 3D printing technology associated with pediatric congenital heart disease indications. Each study was vetted by the authors and strength of evidence was assessed according to published appropriateness ratings.

Results: Evidence-based recommendations for when 3D printing is appropriate are provided for pediatric congenital heart lesions. Recommendations are provided in accordance with strength of evidence of publications corresponding to each cardiac clinical scenario combined with expert opinion from members of the 3DPSIG.

Conclusions: This consensus appropriateness ratings document, created by the members of the RSNA 3DPSIG, provides a reference for clinical standards of 3D printing for pediatric congenital heart disease clinical scenarios.

Keywords: 3D printing; Additive manufacturing; Anatomic model; And congenital heart disease; Appropriateness; Cardiac; Quality; Radiology.

Publication types

Review