Institutional Experience in Virtual Surgical Planning and Three-Dimensional Printing in Plastic Surgery Presented During: View Presentation

BACKGROUND: 3D printing has revolutionized plastic surgery by enabling detailed preoperative planning with lifelike anatomical models, enhancing surgical precision and outcomes. This study focuses on understanding the indications, characteristics, and outcomes of 3D-printed models produced through an institutional in-house, streamlined printing process at a radiology anatomic modeling unit (AMU). METHODS: This retrospective review included all the Plastic Surgery Division AMU orders at our institution. Orders from other departments were excluded. Data was categorized into two patient age groups (≤25 years, N=43; >25 years, N=52). Indication, segmentation times, CAD processing times, anatomical structures modeled, intended use, technologies used, and delivery time. Statistical analysis was performed with ANOVA and Chi-squared tests in BlueSky Statistics© 2024. RESULTS: In total 1400 AMU orders were requested at Rochester, of those, 95 were from our division placed by seven plastic surgeons from 2019 to 2024. Craniofacial structures were the most frequently modeled (61.7%), with specific models including skull reconstructions (34.6%) and combined structures such as the mandible and maxilla (21.0%). Chest models (6.2%) included the newly added indication for external breast prostheses customization (6.1%). Indications varied, with congenital conditions (27.7%) (primarily in patients ≤25 years) and trauma/reconstruction (31.9%) (more common in patients >25 years). Gender dysphoria cases (21.3%) were predominant in patients >25 years. The highest number of models were produced in 2020 (30.5%), followed by 2023 (22.1%) and 2019 (14.7%). Technological Insights: “Vat Photopolymerization” was the most used technology (64.2%), followed by “Material Jetting” (13.6%). Formlabs was the primary 3D printer brand (66.2%), particularly the “Form 3B” model (53.2%). The mean calculated final printing time was 28.16 ± 19.60 hours, and post-processing cleaning averaged 1.68 ± 1.36 hours. Multi-color models (58.3%) were produced more frequently than mono-color. Beyond clinical cases, the in-house printing process also facilitated the creation of medical simulation models, such as chest micro anastomosis models for breast reconstruction and comprehensive head and neck models, enhancing surgical training. CONCLUSION: In-house 3D-printed anatomical models are vital for plastic surgery, especially in craniofacial and reconstructive procedures. The streamlined, institution-based process, predominantly using Formlabs technology and “Vat Photopolymerization,” demonstrates high efficiency and quality. The addition of models for external breast prostheses highlights the expanding scope of 3D printing for non-surgical applications aimed at improving patient quality of life through enhanced body contour and fitting solutions. Future studies should investigate the correlation between 3D model use and patient outcomes and the benefits of medical training.