Skip to main content

3D printing in neurosurgery education: a review

Abstract

Objectives

The objectives of this manuscript were to review the literature concerning 3D printing of brain and cranial vault pathology and use these data to define the gaps in global utilization of 3D printing technology for neurosurgical education.

Methods

Using specified criteria, literature searching was conducted to identify publications describing engineered neurosurgical simulators. Included in the study were manuscripts highlighting designs validated for neurosurgical skill transfer. Purely anatomical designs, lacking aspects of surgical simulation, were excluded. Eligible manuscripts were analyzed. Data on the types of simulators, representing the various modelled neurosurgical pathologies, were recorded. Authors’ countries of affiliation were also recorded.

Results

A total of thirty-six articles, representing ten countries in five continents were identified. Geographically, Africa as a continent was not represented in any of the publications. The simulation-modelling encompassed a variety of neurosurgical subspecialties including: vascular, skull base, ventriculoscopy / ventriculostomy, craniosynostosis, skull lesions / skull defects, intrinsic brain tumor and other. Finally, the vascular and skull base categories together accounted for over half (52.8 %) of the 3D printed simulated neurosurgical pathology.

Conclusions

Despite the growing body of literature supporting 3D printing in neurosurgical education, its full potential has not been maximized. Unexplored areas of 3D printing for neurosurgical simulation include models simulating the resection of intrinsic brain tumors or of epilepsy surgery lesions, as these require complex models to accurately simulate fine dissection techniques. 3D printed surgical phantoms offer an avenue for the advancement of global-surgery education initiatives.

Introduction

Rapid prototyping has seen a rise in application since its infancy in the 1980’s [1]. It can be used to personalize health care through the process of fabricating patient-specific models [2]. This technology, also referred to as three-dimensional (3D) printing, when coupled with high-fidelity specifications or haptic feedback has led to the simulation of various intra-operative scenarios [3]. These simulations have in turn produced feedback data useful for face, construct and content validity of many models in different individual studies [4,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Additionally, validation studies have proven the resulting phantom applications in surgical training to be reproducible as well as to act as reasonable alternatives to cadaveric dissection [10,11,12].

The rapid adaptation of 3D printing technology in surgical training results in part from the conflict created by an increasing demand of surgical skill proficiency within a work-hour restricted environment [13]. The resulting simulators are a reasonable supplement for surgical apprenticeship. The intricacies of the surgical practice have seen an incorporation of phantoms in various surgical residency training programs, including neurosurgery [3, 14]. In the Low and Middle Income Countries (LMIC), there is a mismatch between the large neurosurgical volume and the much fewer number of neurosurgeons. Dewan et al. highlighted the gross disparity in the allocation of surgical workforce, that left large geographic treatment gaps, particularly in Africa [15]. The training of more surgeons has been proffered as a strategy to bridge this disparity [16]. Training of neurosurgeons through the traditional method of apprenticeship is not without its disadvantages, such as patient risk. 3D printed simulators overcome this shortcoming by presenting opportunities to equip trainees with common neurosurgical techniques as well as introducing complex skill sets to qualified neurosurgeons prior to carrying out live surgeries.

The core neurosurgical training sub-specialties are neuro-oncology, pediatric, functional, neurovascular, neuro-trauma, skull base and spine surgery. The shortcomings of technical skill transfer for these areas of specialization arising from cadaveric training, such as and more recently through on 3D printed surgical simulators.

The aims of this manuscript are to review the current global innovations of 3D printing in neurosurgical training, to identify both its global geographic distribution as well as the gaps in technical skill acquisition that 3D printing technology can potentially fill.

Methods

A literature search was conducted on PubMed and Ovid for articles describing the design and application of 3D printing technology for neurosurgical training. The MeSH terms used were the following: “models / anatomic”, “neurosurgery education” and “printing, three dimensional”. The search concepts “models / anatomic”, “neurosurgery education” and “rapid prototyping” as well as “models / anatomic”, “neurosurgery education” and additive manufacturing” were also entered. PRISMA guidelines were applied for the identification, screening, eligibility checks and inclusion of relevant manuscripts [17]. Articles discussing phantoms of the brain, brainstem, intracranial vascular pathology and craniosynostosis were included. Those describing design and use of 3D printed surgical guides were likewise included, as were publications detailing approaches to the skull base. Manuscripts focusing purely on the neuroanatomy; those not tailored to a specific neurosurgical pathology, as well as those that lacked surgeon (or surgeon-in-training) task validation were excluded. Others discussing spine, and spinal cord phantoms, bioprinting, isolated virtual 3D, and non-human modelling were likewise excluded. Although spine surgery is an important part of neurosurgical training, its simulation focuses on skill sets that differ from those of brain and cranial vault neurosurgery.

Journals included in the final review were analyzed for demographic characteristics, trends and country affiliation of the authors. The texts were scrutinized to ensure that the countries where the phantoms were created and validated matched that of at least one of the authors. Once the final review process was completed, the extracted data were grouped using broad identifying terms: vascular, skull base, ventriculoscopy / ventriculostomy, craniosynostosis, skull lesions / skull defects, intrinsic brain tumor and other. Statistical analysis was performed using R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), JMP Pro 14 (JMP Statistical Discovery™ from SAS, North Carolina, USA) and geolytics (Geolytics Pte Ltd, Singapore) software packages.

Results

A summary of our search findings is illustrated in Fig. 1. A total of 36 articles representing ten countries were identified. Publications spanned the years between 2014 and 2020. In 2014, only one neurosurgery simulation manuscript was published, according to the outcome of the search criteria. In subsequent years, seven task-defining simulation phantoms were 3D printed in 2015, four in 2016, six in 2017, nine in 2018, seven in 2019 and two in the first 3.5 months of the year 2020. Figure 2 summarizes these findings in tabulated format.

Fig. 1
figure1

PRISMA search strategy summary

Fig. 2
figure2

A tabulated summary of the distribution of the 3D printed phantoms identified in literature, corresponding to the author’s country affiliations

Broad classifying terms grouped the inventions into seven domains: vascular, skull base, ventriculoscopy / ventriculostomy, craniosynostosis, skull lesions / skull defects, intrinsic brain tumor and other. Of the 36 simulators in our review, vascular models accounted for 10 and skull base models accounted for nine. The two categories, vascular and skull base together, account for over half (52.8 %) of the inventions. Ventriculoscopy / ventriculostomy was simulated in seven of the 36 publications (19.4 %), craniosynostosis in four of the 36 (11.1 %), skull lesions/defects in two of the 36 (5.5 %). Only one manuscript (2.8 %) simulated brain tumor surgery, which in this case was a patient-specific low-grade glioma resection. Single publications were also identified for epilepsy surgery (stereoelectroencephalography), congenital malformations (Sturge weber), and a final model that simulated brain retraction.

Of the 10 countries represented as having contributed to the data by virtue of author affiliation, publications from the USA alone accounted for 47.2 % of the total (17/36). China accounted for 19.4 % (7/36) of the simulated designs, Japan 11.1 % (4/36), Brazil and Canada each 5.6 % (2/36) and Switzerland and Netherlands each 2.8 % (1/36). Co-authored publications included Australia-USA, Turkey-Canada, Canada-Netherlands and USA-Taiwan; there was one article per collaborating author team. Finally, the resulting numeric data were used to generate a world geographic heat map (Fig. 3) as well as a graphical illustration of the categorical distribution of the simulated inventions by country/author affiliation (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3
figure3

Geographic heat map illustrating the current distribution of 3D print technology’s use in neurosurgical education

Fig. 4
figure4

A graphical illustration of the disaggregated data by country of author’s affiliation

Disaggregation of the data yielded Fig. 4, a graph that illustrates the distribution of the various simulated design categories per author’s country of affiliation. Specifically, of the top three simulated categories vascular designs are clustered within China and the USA, skull base designs are clustered within China, Japan and the USA whereas ventriculoscopy designs have a fairly even distribution.

Discussion

The key findings of this manuscript are the geographic depiction of 3D printing technology for neurosurgical education, the trends seen in the timeline between 2014 and 2019 and the simulated neurosurgical disease. By extension this highlights the areas that have as yet not been adequately simulated such as resective epilepsy surgery and brain tumor microdissection techniques.

The review found a general upward trend in the relevant publications, between the years 2014 to 2019, describing the design and neurosurgical application of skull and central nervous system (CNS) simulators. The projected inventions, therefore, for the year 2020 are expected to rise.

Phantoms simulating neurovascular and skull base surgical techniques are relatively common, according to literature. On the other hand, 3D printed models simulating resective epilepsy surgery and brain tumor microdissection techniques are not well described in the literature. [1819]. This finding could indicate that 3D printing technology has not yet evolved to creating models that can simulate fine dissection detail. Currently, there exist a variety of soft materials for direct 3D printing such as TissueMatrix™ that can be used to fabricate quite complex designs using state of the art PolyJet technology, however, the high cost of manufacturing is a limitation. Additionally, despite the high physical fidelity of the resulting designs even this softest material lacks the appropriate tactile feel that would be ideal for simulating neurosurgical dissection. Perhaps not so surprising are the findings in the geographic heat map (Fig. 3), illustrating the paucity of 3D printing technology in the continent of Africa. The call for surgeons to engage in education on a global platform has been made [20, 21]. Our article introduces one way that the global-surgery education gap can be met through the versatile use of 3D printed surgical simulators. Introducing reusable simulators such as those validated for ventriculoscopy is a cost-effective strategy to train resident neurosurgeons both in the developing as well as the developed world. In higher income countries, where evolving surgical engineering research is feasible, developing new materials or re-inventing the use of existing materials which have higher neurosurgical functional fidelity could be explored.

In the developed world the clustering of inventions observed following disaggregation of our data (Fig. 4) is likely multifactorial. The divergence of biomedical engineering research to a surgical engineering focus would occur at different speeds within different institutions. In addition, it is possible that the observed clustering could be representative of the neuropathologic prevalence within each locality [22]. Consequently, the prevalence of disease would stimulate collaboration between surgeons and clinical engineers in the affected countries.

With regard to the representation of countries within North America all the Canadian publications meeting our inclusion criteria originated from the Center for Image Guided Innovation and Therapeutic Intervention lab (CIGITI) at The Hospital for Sick Children [5, 6, 23, 24].

Conclusions

Overall, our review article argues that the already-proven benefit of 3D printing technology for surgical training could be the next frontier in global-surgery education.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. 1.

    Horvath J, Horvath JA. Brief History of 3D Printing. Mastering 3D Print. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-0025-4_1.

  2. 2.

    Randazzo M, Pisapia J, Singh N, Thawani J. 3D printing in neurosurgery: A systematic review. Surg Neurol Int. 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.194059.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Badash I, Burtt K, Solorzano CA, Carey JN. Innovations in surgery simulation: A review of past, current and future techniques. Ann Transl Med. 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2016.12.24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Zhu J, Yang J, Tang C, Cong Z, Cai X, Ma C. Design and validation of a 3D-printed simulator for endoscopic third ventriculostomy. Child’s Nerv Syst. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-019-04421-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Acar T, Karakas AB, Ozer MA, Koc AM, Govsa F. Building Three-Dimensional Intracranial Aneurysm Models from 3D-TOF MRA: a Validation Study. J Digit Imaging. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-019-00256-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bodani VP, Breimer GE, Haji FA, Looi T, Drake JM. Development and evaluation of a patient-specific surgical simulator for endoscopic colloid cyst resection. J Neurosurg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.4.JNS183184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Grillo FW, Souza VH, Matsuda RH, Rondinoni C, Pavan TZ, Baffa O, et al. Patient-specific neurosurgical phantom: assessment of visual quality, accuracy, and scaling effects. 3D Print Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-018-0025-8.

  8. 8.

    Weinstock P, Prabhu SP, Flynn K, Orbach DB, Smith E. Optimizing cerebrovascular surgical and endovascular procedures in children via personalized 3D printing. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.3.PEDS14677.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Yi Z, He B, Liu Y, Huang S, Hong W. Development and evaluation of a craniocerebral model with tactile-realistic feature and intracranial pressure for neurosurgical training. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hsieh TY, Dedhia R, Cervenka B, Tollefson TT. 3D Printing: Current use in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Rose AS, Kimbell JS, Webster CE, Harrysson OLA, Formeister EJ, Buchman CA. Multi-material 3D models for temporal bone surgical simulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489415570937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hochman JB, Rhodes C, Wong D, Kraut J, Pisa J, Unger B. Comparison of cadaveric and isomorphic three-dimensional printed models in temporal bone education. Laryngoscope. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24919.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hutter MM, Kellogg KC, Ferguson CM, Abbott WM, Warshaw AL. The impact of the 80-hour resident workweek on surgical residents and attending surgeons. Ann Surg. 2006. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000220042.48310.66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Klein GT, Lu Y, Wang MY. 3D printing and neurosurgery–ready for prime time? World Neurosurg. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2013.07.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Dewan MC, Rattani A, Fieggen G, Arraez MA, Servadei F, Boop FA, et al. Global neurosurgery: The current capacity and deficit in the provision of essential neurosurgical care. Executive summary of the global neurosurgery initiative at the program in global surgery and social change. J Neurosurg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.11.JNS171500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Park KB, Johnson WD, Dempsey RJ. Global Neurosurgery: The Unmet Need. World Neurosurg. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2015.12.048.

  17. 17.

    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med [Internet]. Public Library of Science; 2009. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/89.9.873.

  18. 18.

    Thawani JP, Singh N, Pisapia JM, Abdullah KG, Parker D, Pukenas BA, et al. Three-dimensional printed modeling of diffuse low-grade gliomas and associated white matter tract anatomy. Clin Neurosurg. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyx009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Camara D, Panov F, Oemke H, Ghatan S, Costa A. Robotic surgical rehearsal on patient-specific 3D-printed skull models for stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1885-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Meara JG, Greenberg SLM. The Lancet Commission on global surgery global surgery 2030: Evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare and economic development. Surg (United States). 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.02.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Farmer PE, Kim JY. Surgery and global health: A view from beyond the OR. World J Surg. 2008. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9525-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Wu S, Wu B, Liu M, Chen Z, Wang W, Anderson CS, et al. Stroke in China: advances and challenges in epidemiology, prevention, and management. Lancet Neurol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30500-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Eastwood KW, Bodani VP, Haji FA, Looi T, Naguib HE, Drake JM. Development of synthetic simulators for endoscope-assisted repair of metopic and sagittal craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.2.PEDS18121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Breimer GE, Bodani V, Looi T, Drake JM. Design and evaluation of a new synthetic brain simulator for endoscopic third ventriculostomy. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.9.PEDS1447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr. Rachael Cayley PhD, Associate Professor at the School of Graduate Studies, University of Toronto, helped to grammar-proof our article.

Funding

None.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conception and design: Thiong’o. Acquisition of data: Thiong’o. Analysis and interpretation of data: Thiong’o. Drafting the article: All authors. Critically revising the article: All authors. Reviewed submitted version of manuscript: All authors. Approved the final version of the manuscript on behalf of all authors: Thiong’o. Statistical analysis: Thiong’o. Study supervision: Drake.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grace M. Thiong’o.

Ethics declarations

Authors’ Information

All the authors are committed to finding innovative solutions to the global neurosurgery inequities.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thiong’o, G.M., Bernstein, M. & Drake, J. 3D printing in neurosurgery education: a review. 3D Print Med 7, 9 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-021-00099-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Additive Manufacturing
  • Neurosurgery Education
  • Rapid prototyping
  • 3D printing
\