Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 314–319 | Cite as

3D Printed Surgical Instruments: The Design and Fabrication Process

  • Mitchell GeorgeEmail author
  • Kevin R. Aroom
  • Harvey G. Hawes
  • Brijesh S. Gill
  • Joseph Love
Innovative Surgical Techniques Around the World

Abstract

Background

3D printing is an additive manufacturing process allowing the creation of solid objects directly from a digital file. We believe recent advances in additive manufacturing may be applicable to surgical instrument design. This study investigates the feasibility, design and fabrication process of usable 3D printed surgical instruments.

Methods

The computer-aided design package SolidWorks (Dassault Systemes SolidWorks Corp., Waltham MA) was used to design a surgical set including hemostats, needle driver, scalpel handle, retractors and forceps. These designs were then printed on a selective laser sintering (SLS) Sinterstation HiQ (3D Systems, Rock Hill SC) using DuraForm EX plastic. The final printed products were evaluated by practicing general surgeons for ergonomic functionality and performance, this included simulated surgery and inguinal hernia repairs on human cadavers. Improvements were identified and addressed by adjusting design and build metrics.

Results

Repeated manufacturing processes and redesigns led to the creation of multiple functional and fully reproducible surgical sets utilizing the user feedback of surgeons. Iterative cycles including design, production and testing took an average of 3 days. Each surgical set was built using the SLS Sinterstation HiQ with an average build time of 6 h per set.

Conclusions

Functional 3D printed surgical instruments are feasible. Advantages compared to traditional manufacturing methods include no increase in cost for increased complexity, accelerated design to production times and surgeon specific modifications.

Keywords

Inguinal Hernia Repair Additive Manufacturing Surgical Instrument Selective Laser Sinter Fuse Deposition Modeling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Hull CW (1986) Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by stereolithography. US Patent 4,575,330, 11 Mar 1986Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crump SS (1992) Apparatus and method for creating three-dimensional objects. US Patent 5,121,329, 9 June 1992Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaman JJ, Deckard CR (1990) Selective laser sintering with assisted powder handling. US Patent 4,938,816, 3 July 1990Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berry Connell, Craven Brown (1997) Preliminary experience with medical applications of rapid prototyping by selective laser sintering. Med Eng Phys 19(1):90–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosset A, Spadola L, Ratib O (2004) OsiriX: an open-source software for navigating in multidimensional DICOM images. J Digit Imaging 17(3):205–216CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Uygun BE (2010) Organ reengineering through development of a transplantable recellularized liver graft using decellularized liver matrix. Nat Med 16(7):814–820CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petersen TH (2010) Tissue-engineered lungs for in vivo implantation. Science 329(5991):538–541CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leukers B (2005) Hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering made by 3D printing. J Mater Sci Mater Med 16:1121–1124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Solar P, Ulm C, Imhof H et al (1992) Precision of threedimensional CT-assisted model production in the maxillofacial area. Eur J Radiol 2(5):473–477Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mavili ME, Canter HI, Saglam-Aydinatay B, Kamaci S, Kocadereli I (2007) Use of three-dimensional medical modeling methods for precise planning of orthognathic surgery. J Craniofac Surg 18(4):740–747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meehan M, Teschner M, Girod S (2003) Three-dimensional simulation and prediction of craniofacial surgery. Orthod Craniofac Res 6(supplement 1):102–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silva DN (2008) Dimensional error in selective laser sintering and 3D-printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 36(8):443–449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flugge TV (2013) Three-dimensional plotting and printing of an implant drilling guide: simplifying guided implant surgery. J Oral Maxillofacial Surg 71(8):1340–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kondor S (2013) On demand additive manufacturing of a basic surgical kit. J Med Devices ASME 7:030916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kondor S (2013) Personalized surgical instruments. J Med Devices ASME 7(3):030934CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitchell George
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kevin R. Aroom
    • 1
  • Harvey G. Hawes
    • 1
  • Brijesh S. Gill
    • 1
  • Joseph Love
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations