Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Clinical situations for which 3D printing is considered an appropriate representation or extension of data contained in a medical imaging examination: neurosurgical and otolaryngologic conditions

3D Printing in Medicine volume 9, Article number: 33 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Medical three dimensional (3D) printing is performed for neurosurgical and otolaryngologic conditions, but without evidence-based guidance on clinical appropriateness. A writing group composed of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Special Interest Group on 3D Printing (SIG) provides appropriateness recommendations for neurologic 3D printing conditions.

Methods

A structured literature search was conducted to identify all relevant articles using 3D printing technology associated with neurologic and otolaryngologic conditions. Each study was vetted by the authors and strength of evidence was assessed according to published guidelines.

Results

Evidence-based recommendations for when 3D printing is appropriate are provided for diseases of the calvaria and skull base, brain tumors and cerebrovascular disease. Recommendations are provided in accordance with strength of evidence of publications corresponding to each neurologic condition combined with expert opinion from members of the 3D printing SIG.

Conclusions

This consensus guidance document, created by the members of the 3D printing SIG, provides a reference for clinical standards of 3D printing for neurologic conditions.

Background

In 2018, the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) three dimensional (3D) printing Special Interest Group (SIG) published guidelines for medical 3D printing and appropriateness for certain clinical scenarios including congenital heart disease, craniomaxillofacial pathologies, genitourinary pathologies, musculoskeletal pathologies, vascular pathologies, and breast pathologies [1]. Currently, medical 3D printing is performed for neurosurgical and otolaryngologic conditions such as pathology involving the skull base, brain tumors unrelated to the skull base, and craniosynostosis, but without evidence for when 3D printing is appropriate. The purpose of this document is to identify the clinical conditions for neurosurgical and otolaryngologic 3D printing, and then vet, vote and publish recommendations on their appropriateness.

Methods

The 3D SIG identified clinical situations for 3D printing of neurologic conditions, and then provide recommendations for when 3D printing is considered usually appropriate, maybe appropriate, and rarely appropriate [2]. Strength of evidence was determined by literature review. Consensus among 3D printing SIG members is used when there is a paucity of evidence.

The SIG Guidelines Chairperson managed the ratings of this document via a vote among SIG members. The results of the ratings follow the established 1–9 format (with 9 being the most appropriate):

1–3, red, rarely appropriate: There is a lack of a clear benefit or experience that shows an advantage over usual practice.

4–6, yellow, maybe appropriate: There may be times when there is an advantage, but the data is lacking, or the benefits have not been fully defined.

7–9, green, usually appropriate: Data and experience shows an advantage to 3D printing as a method to represent and/or extend the value of data contained in the medical imaging examination.

Clinical scenarios were organized by pathologies unique to the three main regions of the skull base, extra-axial tumors unrelated to the skull base, the updated 2021 world health organizations (WHO) definitions of intra-axial brain tumors and craniosynostosis [3,4,5]. A major treatise in neuroimaging served as a guide for search terms (Appendix 1), to ensure an exhaustive search [6]. Afterwards, an English language PubMed literature search and an AUC document structure using standard categories for assessment were created. The supporting evidence was obtained through structured PubMed searches. From each search result the relevant articles written in English were curated by consensus between physicians with expertise in 3D printing and neuroimaging. Publications were deemed ineligible if they solely focused on bioprinting, virtual or augmented reality, were not related to human subjects, or were review articles without new patient data. All final included literature and recommendations of this section were vetted and approved by vote of Special Interest Group members virtually at the November 21, 2022 SIG Appropriateness Committee Meeting. Afterwards, the ratings and associated literature were posted on the SIG’s members-only online forum and comments could be made by SIG members for a 2-week period. All included studies were graded with a strength of evidence assessment, using as a methodology the assignment used by the American College of Radiology [2]. This manuscript represents the findings and conclusion of the 3D printing SIG and does not represent an endorsement by the RSNA.

Results

Table 1 provides evidence-based [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161] appropriateness ratings, supplemented by expert opinion when there was a paucity of peer-review data, to define and support the use of 3D printing for patients with neurologic conditions. The citations included in forming the appropriateness recommendations and the strength of evidence assessment are presented in Appendices 1 and 2 respectively.

Table 1 Appropriateness Ratings for Neurosurgical and Otolaryngologic Conditions
Full size table

Discussion

Skull base

The skull base is a complex anatomic region that separates the intracranial tissues from the extracranial compartments with multiple neural and vascular structures extending through foramina and fissures. Lesions in this region may originate within the skull base itself, from intracranial tissues and extend inferior, or from extracranial soft tissues extending superiorly [162,163,164]. Given the complexity of pathology in this region there is no one classification for neoplastic and non-neoplastic pathologies. Pathologies of the skull base are typically subdivided both clinically and radiographically by anatomic region: the anterior, middle, and posterior skull base.

Anterior skull base

The anterior skull base separates the intracranial content from the nasal cavity. There are many histologic tissue types are present in the anterior skull base. Primary tumors of this area may be derived from the bone, paranasal sinuses, nasopharynx, dura, cranial nerves, pituitary gland and brain.

Olfactory groove meningiomas

The olfactory groove is a paired depression in the cribriform plate on either side of the crista galli. It transmits the olfactory nerves and anteriorly contains a small foramen for the nasociliary nerve, a branch of the ophthalmic nerve. Olfactory groove meningiomas account for approximately 10% of intracranial meningiomas. Because of their slow growth and anatomic location, patient with olfactory groove meningiomas typically present later in the natural history of the disease with larger size of tumors, approximately 15% of which extend into the nasal cavity [164, 165]. Multiple surgical approaches to remove these tumors are used including bifrontal, unilateral frontal, and pterion craniotomies. Endoscopic approaches with the aid of an otorhinolaryngologist are also described [166]. No formal classification system exists for olfactory groove exists. Therefore, a binary distinction of simple and complex olfactory groove meningioma is used in this report. Simple olfactory groove meningiomas are defined as well circumscribed tumors measuring less than 4 cm without significant hyperostosis, extension into the nasal cavity, brain invasion, significant brain edema, or encasement of major vascular structures. Complex olfactory groove meningiomas are categorized as those measuring greater than 4 cm with irregular margins, significant hyperostosis of the adjacent bone, greater than 25% calcification, brain invasion, significant brain edema, encasement of the anterior communicating artery or anterior cerebral artery branches, and/or extension into the nasal cavity. 3D Printing case series and case reports have shown benefit in preoperative planning, patient informed consent, intraoperative guidance, shortening operative time, and improving anatomic understanding during surgical removal [7,8,9].

Tuberculum sella meningiomas

Meningiomas of the tuberculum sella arise from the limbus sphenoidale, chiasmatic sulcus, and tuberculum. They comprise approximately 3–10% of all intracranial meningiomas and typically present earlier than olfactory groove meningiomas due compression of the optic chiasm leading to visual symptoms [167, 168]. Tuberculum sellae meningiomas characteristically lie in a suprasellar sub-chiasmal midline position resulting in posterior and superior displacement of the optic chiasm and lateral displacement of the pre-chiasmatic optic nerve. Management ideally consists of gross-total resection without injury to neighboring vital structures. Surgical approaches included extended bifrontal, unilateral frontal, pterional, and fronto-temporo-orbito-zygomatic (FTOZ) trajectories [169]. Palani et al. proposed a scoring system for classification which factors tumor size, optic canal invasion, vascular encasement of the internal cerebral and anterior cerebral arteries, brain invasion, previous surgery, or previous radiation [169]. Class I (0–3 points), class II (4–7 points), and class III (8–11 points) disease have prognostic implication of surgical risk, intraoperative vascular injury, subtotal resection, need for adjuvant radiation, and likelihood of visual symptom improvement [170]. 3D printing is beneficial in more complex tumors (class II-III) of this region for improved preoperative anatomic understanding, intraoperative guidance, improved patient informed consent and trainee education.

Olfactory neuroblastoma (Esthesioneuroblastoma)

Olfactory neuroblastoma, also referred to as esthesioneuroblastoma, is a rare malignant tumor of neuroectodermal origin thought to arise from the olfactory epithelium [171]. There is bimodal age distribution with one peak in young adult patients (approximately 2nd decade of life) and a second peak in the 5th to 6th decades [172]. These tumors are most frequently staged using a system proposed by Kadish et al. in 1976 which includes group A: limited to the nasal cavity, group B: limited to the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, and group C: extended beyond the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses into the skull base, intracranial compartment, or orbits. Distant metastatic disease also qualifies group C disease [173]. An additional group was added by Chao et al. in 2001 including group D: cervical nodal metastases. Treatment usually involves combinations of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgical excision [174]. Prognosis is significantly affected by the presence of distant metastases. No specific literature exists related to benefits of 3D printing for esthesioneuroblastoma; however, it has been shown by members of the 3D printing SIG to successfully demonstrate relationships of tumor to critical intracranial anatomy and vascular structures in Kadish group C tumors. Complex trans-osseous tumors with vascular encasement and displacement of neural structures stand to benefit the most from preoperative planning and patient specific 3D Printing.

Sinonasal tumors

Sinonasal tumors are a heterogenous group of tumors that originate in the sinus or nasal cavity, of which squamous cell carcinomas are the most common (80%) [175]. Adenoid cystic carcinoma is the second most common and most likely to recur after surgery (75–90%) [176, 177]. Perineural tumor spread is the hallmark of adenoid cystic tumors which sometimes presents with late recurrences. Adenocarcinoma represents 10% of nasal cavity tumors. Other rarer tumors include mucoepidermoid, sinonasal melanoma, and sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma which is the most aggressive [178]. No peer reviewed literature related to 3D printing exists for this subgroup presently; however, members of the 3D SIG have 3D printed patient specific aggressive sinonasal tumors extending intracranially for preoperative planning and found it beneficial.

Juvenile nasopharyngeal angiofibroma (JNA)

Juvenile nasopharyngeal angiofibroma (JNA) is a benign but locally aggressively vascular tumor that may involve the anterior skull base and extend intracranially. Patients are typically young males who present with epistaxis or chronic otomastoiditis due to obstruction of the Eustachian tube. The staging system proposed by Sessions et al. is the most commonly used and divides tumors into three stages with extension into the skull base qualifying stage III disease [179]. There is no peer reviewed literature related to 3D printing and JNA.

Frontal sinus infection

Frontal sinus infection can be complicated by intracranial extension if left untreated or in immunocompromise patients. Intracranial complications include the formation of brain abscesses, subdural empyema, meningitis, cavernous sinus thrombosis, or osteomyelitis [180, 181]. While most infectious etiologies do not merit a 3D printed model, Jung et al. published a case report where 3D printing was used for reconstruction of the frontal bone after severe infection of the frontal sinuses [182].

Frontal sinus mucocele

A mucocele of the paranasal sinus is an accumulation of mucoid secretion and desquamated epithelium within the sinus resulting in benign cyst-like expansion of the sinus walls. Approximately 60–89% occur in the frontal sinus, followed by 8–30% in the ethmoid sinuses, and less than 5% in the maxillary sinus [183]. The treatment of mucoceles is surgical to drain the mucocele and ventilate the sinus and prevent recurrences [184]. Sanchez-Gomez published a case series of 7 patients where 3D printing using stereolithography was used to improve preoperative planning, patient specific anatomic understanding, and reducing intraoperative time [15].

Middle skull base

The central skull base represents the junction between the intracranial contents, the bone of the skull base, the orbits, the paranasal sinuses, and the suprahyoid neck. It contains the anterior clinoid processes, sphenoid wings, sella, cavernous sinus.

Pituitary macroadenoma

Pituitary adenomas are relatively common tumors arising from adenohypophyseal cells and account for 10–15% of all intracranial neoplasms [185]. Pituitary adenomas have been classified according to the clinical, radiological, and endocrinological findings, tumor size, and invasion of adjacent structures. Pituitary adenomas are divided into microadenomas and macroadenomas by a cutoff size of 10 mm. Pituitary macroadenomas (greater than 1 cm) often extend into the suprasellar compartment giving rise to a classic “snowman” or “Figure of 8” morphology. Invade the cavernous sinus occurs in 6–10% of cases, limiting surgical resectability [186, 187]. There are 3 main classifications of Pituitary Adenomas; Hardys classification which incorporates bone invasion inferiorly into the sphenoid sinus (grade 0–4) and suprasellar involvement (grade A-E) and Knosp classification of cavernous sinus invasion (Grade I-IV) [188,189,190]. 3 case series, 1 case report, and 1 randomized control trial of 20 patients demonstrated improved preoperative planning, intraoperative guidance, patient education, blood loss and operative times [16,17,18].

Craniopharyngioma

Craniopharyngiomas are midline suprasellar tumors which are relatively benign (WHO grade I), but locally aggressive. They originate from epithelial remnants of Rathke’s pouch and are a formidable neurosurgical resection as they are intimately associated with the hypothalamus and optic apparatus. They are classified by location as retrochiasmatic, prechiasmatic, intraventricular (third ventricle), and intrasellar. Several surgical approaches have been created depending on the age of the patient, location, and size of the tumor [191]. Pathologically there are two subtypes, papillary (PCP) and adamantinomatous (ACP). ACPs are more common in children are composed of cystic “motor oil-like” components as well as solid components with frequent calcification. In contrast, PCPs are more common in adults, rarely calcified, mostly solid, and well-circumscribed with clear cyst contents [192]. Advancements in imaging have led to several described classification schemes, but no single scheme is widely used [191, 193,194,195,196]. Surgical goals must be balanced with the potential morbidity of hypothalamic or optic apparatus injury; hence, preoperative understanding of tumor anatomy is crucial. Guo published a case series of 355 craniopharyngiomas, 45 of which had 3D printed models used for preoperative planning [22]. This study demonstrated improved preoperative anatomic understanding which aided in choosing surgical approach. Other smaller case series demonstrate similar findings [8, 9].

Anterior clinoid meningiomas

Anterior clinoidal meningiomas arise from the meningeal covering of the anterior clinoid process. These meningiomas are distinct from the more commonly discussed sphenoid wing meningiomas with unique anatomic landmarks, surgical outcomes, and clinical experience [197]. They are divided further into 3 subcategories based on their relation to the anterior clinoidal process and ease of resection.

Type I - Clinoidal meningiomas originate from the inferomedial surface of the clinoidal process proximal to the distal carotid ring.

Type II - Clinoidal meningiomas originate from the superolateral surface of the clinoid process, leading to widening of the sylvian fissure.

Type III – Clinoidal meningiomas originate at the optic foramen and extend into the optic canal.

Preoperative imaging has suboptimal sensitivity for detection of tumor involving the clinoid process (approximately 75%) and the clinoid process is typically removed [198]. Limited literature exist surrounding the utilization of 3D printing in preoperative planning for these meningiomas [9, 11]. However, members of the 3D printing SIG have printed patient specific models in this region for preoperative planning. Given the close association with the cavernous sinus and intracranial internal carotid artery, 3D printing maybe appropriate for this disease process.

Optic nerve sheath meningioma

Optic nerve sheath meningiomas are rare benign neoplasms originating in the arachnoid cap cells of the meninges surrounding the optic nerve. While benign, they are a significant source of morbidity due to loss of vision, disfigurement from proptosis or potential operative morbidity. While these tumors are rare, they account for one-third of meningiomas involving the orbit [199]. Surgical resection carries the risk of blindness, creating the need to balancing growth of the tumor vs. potential morbidity from resection. These tumors are typically unilateral except in the context of neurofibromatosis type 2 [200]. These are slow growing tumors, therefore surgical management is only considered in situations where tissue diagnosis is required, tumor demonstrates progressive posterior extension into the intracranial compartment, complete vision loss is pre-existing and en bloc resection is possible, or in patients who have significant orbital disfigurement [201, 202]. There is no peer reviewed literature related to 3D printing and optic nerve sheath meningioma. Members of the 3D SIG have created models for Al-Mefty category III tumors and found it to be useful for preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance [197].

Sphenoid wing meningioma

Sphenoid wing meningiomas account for 11–20% of intracranial meningiomas. The location of the tumor has been further divided into 3 groups: (1) medial; (2) middle; and (3) lateral. En plaque meningiomas occur in this location commonly and are characterized by sheetlike dural thickening and bone hyperostosis. Management of meningiomas in this location can be difficult, especially medially, due to proximity of neurovascular structures traversing the adjacent neural foramina and the adjacent cavernous sinus contents. There are varied surgical approaches beyond the pterion craniotomy, therefore preoperative localization of the anatomic extension of the tumor is important [203, 204]. Extent of resection and morbidity can depend on cavernous sinus involvement, encasement of the anterior cerebral or middle cerebral arteries, orbital apex involvement, and bony hyperostosis [27, 205,206,207]. 3D printed models have been used in several case series which demonstrated improved preoperative planning, selection of surgical approach, anatomic understanding of critical neurovascular structures in relationship to tumor, and patient education [8, 9, 24, 25, 28].

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma is the most common tumor of the nasopharynx for which radiation and chemotherapy are the primary modalities for therapy [208]. Members of the 3D SIG anecdotally report clinical utility for tumors with involvement of adjacent bony structures or those with intracranial extension, TNM designations T3 and T4 respectively [209]. There is no peer reviewed literature describing the use of 3D printing for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Posterior skull base

The clivus forms the anterior aspect of the posterior skull base and extends inferiorly to the foramen magnum. Laterally the posterior skull base is formed by the posterior surface of the petrous portion of the temporal bone and the mastoid portion of the temporal bone. Detailed knowledge of the foramen and the neurovascular structures traversing them is essential in surgical management of tumors in this location.

Meningiomas

Posterior cranial fossa meningiomas account for approximately 8–10% of all intracranial meningiomas [6]. There are few published reports describing the benefit of a 3D printed model for resection of posterior fossa meningiomas in the petroclival region. As our ability to visualize and accurately segment skull base structures improve, we anticipate that the need and utility of such models will increase.

Vestibular schwannoma

Vestibular schwannoma, also known as acoustic schwannomas or acoustic neuromas, are benign tumors which comprise the vast majority of cerebellopontine angle masses (~ 85–90%) [6]. There are few published reports for the use of 3D printing for vestibular schwannomas [17]. However, we have anecdotally noted a high demand for these models at our institution for presurgical planning and surgical trainee education. Specifically, these models have been used to determine the surgical approach and proximity of the tumor with cranial nerve VII.

Chordomas

Chordomas are a locally aggressive primary malignant neoplasm which occur at the midline, arising at any point along the course of the primitive notochord. Spheno-occipital chordomas, also known as clival chordomas, are located intracranially at the midline and are less common compared to sacral or spinal chordomas. Endoscopic and multiple open surgical approaches are described in the management of clival chordomas [210]. There are no published reports for 3D printing for planning of surgical resection of clival chordomas. The need for extensive drilling of bony structures in the skull base during the surgical resection of these tumors suggests preoperative visualization and simulation with a patient specific 3D printed model could add value.

Petrous apex

The petrous apex is a pyramidal shaped bone of the middle skull base which is formed by the medial aspect of the temporal bone. Diseases affecting the temporal bone are wide ranging, many of which are amenable to open or endoscopic surgical techniques. Few reports currently exist for lesions of the petrous apex including cases of chondrosarcoma, cholesteatoma, and a petrous apex cyst [33, 47, 50]. All reports reaffirm that 3D printed models of petrous apex pathologies are accurate, aid in preoperative planning and improve patient safety.

Temporal bone

Anatomy of the temporal bone is complex and surgical procedures involving the temporal bone are technically challenging. The ability to plan and rehearse procedures on a life-like model are invaluable to the field of otologic surgery. A plethora of reports demonstrate the feasibility of temporal bone models produced by 3D printing technology to be both accurate, cheap and reproducible.55,70 48,50–53,58−69,71,72,74 3D printed temporal bone models have proven both qualitatively and quantitatively accurate compared to temporal bone anatomy visualized on imaging as well cadaveric specimens [48, 52, 72, 74].

Ossicular chain

The ossicular chain is comprised of the malleus, incus and stapes bones within the middle ear cavity. Size compatible 3D printed biocompatible materials for use as prosthetics have been shown possible in cadaveric models [85, 90]. However, this application for 3D printing has not been proven in case reports or randomized controlled trials.

Labyrinth

One of the emerging indications for patient specific models of the temporal bone is pre-operative planning for cochlear hearing device implantation. Minute structures of the inner ear, although challenging to segment and print in true size, have been demonstrated to be feasible in multiple studies [81, 84, 86, 87]. Patient specific models for this indication have been shown to reduce operative time, reduce overall cost, increase surgical precision and reduce complication in a small case series for implantation of a cochlear hearing device [82]. Authors have used both 3D visualization software and 3D printed models for volumetric studies for various types of inner ear pathologies such as incomplete partition and enlarged vestibular aqueduct syndromes [88]. In a single study, authors suggest the feasibility for creating custom implants for the indication of superior semicircular canal dehiscence [89].

Cholesteatoma

Cholesteatomas are an overgrowth of epithelial cells occurring the middle ear cavity and temporal bone which occasionally require surgical removal. CT imaging is the primary preoperative imaging tool guiding preoperative planning. The addition of a 3D printed model for surgical planning has been shown accurate in reproducing anatomy, particularly for patients with complex anatomy [54].

Congenital or acquired deformity of the skull base

Basilar invagination, platybasia and other craniovertebral anomalies, congenital or acquired, can be challenging to manage operatively. Multiple case reports and case series demonstrate that rehearsal of individualized skull reconstruction with an anatomic model has been shown to improve surgeon confidence, reduce operative risk and improve outcomes [26, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46].

Brain tumors

The global incidence of primary malignant brain tumors in adults is approximately 3.7 per 100,000 for males and 2.6 per 100,000 for females, with even higher rates in developed countries [211]. 3D printing technology has been used in preoperative planning for tumor resections and for radiosurgical guides.91–100 101,102,151 Unlike resection of tumors elsewhere in the body, outcomes from brain tumor resection are heavily surgical performance based. Literature supporting improved performance with 3D printed models used for preoperative planning and simulation justify their cost [91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103].

Cerebrovascular disease

3D printed vascular models are often limited to treatment of complex intracranial vascular pathologies for clinical decision making. However, there is a large body of evidence reporting the use of 3D printed vascular models, both simple and complex, for education and surgical simulation.111–153,158−161 Few authors have utilized 3D printing for pre-surgical planning of arteriovenous malformation resection [150, 153]. Models of dural venous sinuses and cerebral venous anatomy are not well reported in the literature; however, fabrication of these models are feasible.

Conclusion

This document provides clinical appropriateness for 3D printing for patients with neurosurgical and otolaryngologic conditions. Adoption of common clinical standards regarding appropriate use, information and material management, and quality control are needed to ensure the greatest possible clinical benefit from 3D printing. With accruing evidence for utility and value in 3D printing, it is anticipated that this consensus document, created by the members of the 3D printing Special Interest Group, will provide information that can be used for future clinical standards of 3D printing.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

RSNA:

Radiological Society of North America

SIG:

Special Interest Group

References

  1. Chepelev L, Wake N, Ryan J, et al. Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 3D printing Special Interest Group (SIG): guidelines for medical 3D printing and appropriateness for clinical scenarios. 3D Print Med. 2018;4(1):11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. (2018) American college of radiology. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria. Accessed 2 Dec.

  3. Johnson DR, Guerin JB, Giannini C, Morris JM, Eckel LJ, Kaufmann TJ. 2016 Updates to the WHO Brain Tumor Classification System: What the Radiologist Needs to Know. Radiographics 2017;37(7):2164–2180.

  4. Yilmaz E, Mihci E, Nur B, Alper OM, Tacoy S. Recent advances in craniosynostosis. Pediatr Neurol. 2019;99:7–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Louis DN, Perry A, Wesseling P, et al. The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Neuro Oncol. 2021;23(8):1231–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Osborn AG, Hedlund GL, Salzman KL. Osborn’s brain: imaging, pathology, and anatomy Second edition. ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2018.

  7. Zhang H, Liu G, Tong XG, Hang W. [Application of three-dimensional printing technology in the surgical treatment of nasal skull base tumor]. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2018;53(10):780–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. D’Urso PS, Barker TM, Earwaker WJ, et al. Stereolithographic biomodelling in cranio-maxillofacial surgery: a prospective trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1999;27(1):30–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Okonogi S, Kondo K, Harada N, Masuda H, Nemoto M, Sugo N. Operative simulation of anterior clinoidectomy using a rapid prototyping model molded by a three-dimensional printer. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017;159(9):1619–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kondo K, Harada N, Masuda H, et al. A neurosurgical simulation of skull base tumors using a 3D printed rapid prototyping model containing mesh structures. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(6):1213–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Abe M, Tabuchi K, Goto M, Uchino A. Model-based surgical planning and simulation of cranial base surgery. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 1998;38(11):746–50. discussion 750 – 741.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lin QS, Lin YX, Wu XY, Yao PS, Chen P, Kang DZ. Utility of 3-Dimensional-printed models in enhancing the learning curve of surgery of Tuberculum Sellae Meningioma. World Neurosurg. 2018;113:e222–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hsieh TY, Cervenka B, Dedhia R, Strong EB, Steele T. Assessment of a Patient-Specific, 3-Dimensionally printed endoscopic sinus and Skull Base Surgical Model. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(7):574–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Shah KJ, Peterson JC, Beahm DD, Camarata PJ, Chamoun RB. Three-dimensional printed model used to teach Skull Base anatomy through a Transsphenoidal Approach for Neurosurgery residents. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2016;12(4):326–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sanchez-Gomez S, Herrero-Salado TF, Maza-Solano JM, Ropero-Romero F, Gonzalez-Garcia J, Ambrosiani-Fernandez J. Improved planning of endoscopic sinonasal surgery from 3-dimensional images with Osirix(R) and stereolithography. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2015;66(6):317–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shinomiya A, Shindo A, Kawanishi M, et al. Usefulness of the 3D virtual visualization surgical planning simulation and 3D model for endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery of pituitary adenoma: technical report and review of literature. Interdisciplinary Neurosurg. 2018;13:13–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lin J, Zhou Z, Guan J, et al. Using Three-Dimensional Printing to create individualized cranial nerve models for Skull Base Tumor surgery. World Neurosurg. 2018;120:e142–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Huang X, Liu Z, Wang X, et al. A small 3D-printing model of macroadenomas for endoscopic endonasal surgery. Pituitary. 2019;22(1):46–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zheng JP, Li CZ, Chen GQ. Multimaterial and multicolor 3D-printed model in training of transnasal endoscopic surgery for pituitary adenoma. Neurosurg Focus. 2019;47(6):E21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Waran V, Menon R, Pancharatnam D, et al. The creation and verification of cranial models using three-dimensional rapid prototyping technology in field of transnasal sphenoid endoscopy. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2012;26(5):132–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shen Z, Xie Y, Shang X, et al. The manufacturing procedure of 3D printed models for endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. Technol Health Care. 2020;28(S1):131–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Guo F, Wang G, Suresh V, et al. Clinical study on microsurgical treatment for craniopharyngioma in a single consecutive institutional series of 335 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018;167:162–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fernandez-Miranda JC, Hwang P, Grant G. Endoscopic endonasal surgery for resection of Giant Craniopharyngioma in a toddler-multimodal Presurgical Planning, Surgical technique, and management of complications: 2-Dimensional Operative Video. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2020;19(1):E68–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Oishi M, Fukuda M, Yajima N, et al. Interactive presurgical simulation applying advanced 3D imaging and modeling techniques for skull base and deep tumors. J Neurosurg. 2013;119(1):94–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Westendorff C, Kaminsky J, Ernemann U, Reinert S, Hoffmann J. Image-guided sphenoid wing meningioma resection and simultaneous computer-assisted cranio-orbital reconstruction: technical case report. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(2 Suppl 1):ONSE173–174. discussion ONSE174.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Luo J, Morrison DA, Hayes AJ, Bala A, Watts G. Single-piece Titanium plate Cranioplasty Reconstruction of Complex defects. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(4):839–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Muller A, Krishnan KG, Uhl E, Mast G. The application of rapid prototyping techniques in cranial reconstruction and preoperative planning in neurosurgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2003;14(6):899–914.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bullock P, Dunaway D, McGurk L, Richards R. Integration of image guidance and rapid prototyping technology in craniofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;42(8):970–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ravi P, Burch MB, Farahani S et al. Utility and costs during the initial year of 3-D Printing in an academic hospital. J Am Coll Radiol. 2022.

  30. Kondo K, Nemoto M, Harada N, et al. Three-dimensional printed model for Surgical Simulation of Combined Transpetrosal Approach. World Neurosurg. 2019;127:e609–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Muelleman TJ, Peterson J, Chowdhury NI, Gorup J, Camarata P, Lin J. Individualized Surgical Approach Planning for Petroclival Tumors using a 3D printer. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2016;77(3):243–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Panesar SS, Magnetta M, Mukherjee D, et al. Patient-specific 3-dimensionally printed models for neurosurgical planning and education. Neurosurg Focus. 2019;47(6):E12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kosterhon M, Neufurth M, Neulen A et al. Multicolor 3D Printing of Complex Intracranial Tumors in Neurosurgery. J Vis Exp 2020(155).

  34. Pijpker PAJ, Wagemakers M, Kraeima J, Vergeer RA, Kuijlen JMA, Groen RJM. Three-dimensional printed polymethylmethacrylate casting molds for posterior Fossa Reconstruction in the Surgical treatment of Chiari I malformation: technical note and illustrative cases. World Neurosurg. 2019;129:148–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Liu JY, Man QW, Ma YQ, Liu B. I(125) brachytherapy guided by individual three-dimensional printed plates for recurrent ameloblastoma of the skull base. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;55(7):e38–e40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fernandes N, van den Heever J, Hoogendijk C, Botha S, Booysen G, Els J. Reconstruction of an extensive midfacial defect using Additive Manufacturing techniques. J Prosthodont. 2016;25(7):589–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Broeckx CE, Maal TJJ, Vreeken RD, Bos RRM, Ter Laan M. Single-step resection of an Intraosseous Meningioma and Cranial Reconstruction: technical note. World Neurosurg. 2017;108:225–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Guo XY, He ZQ, Duan H, et al. The utility of 3-dimensional-printed models for skull base meningioma surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(6):370.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Rashim K, Verma Pawan K, Sinha VD. Increasing the safety of surgical treatment for complex Cranio-vertebral anomalies using customized 3D printed models. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;48:203–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yuan T, Jia G, Yang L, Xu D, Zhang J, Liu Q. Occipitocervical fusion combined with 3-dimensional navigation and 3-dimensional printing technology for the treatment of atlantoaxial dislocation with basilar invagination: a case report. Med (Baltim). 2020;99(5):e18983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Goel A, Jankharia B, Shah A, Sathe P. Three-dimensional models: an emerging investigational revolution for craniovertebral junction surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25(6):740–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang J, Zhu C, Xia H. Management of Unique Basilar Invagination combined with C1 prolapsing into the Foramen Magnum in Children: report of 2 cases. World Neurosurg. 2019;127:92–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Narayanan V, Narayanan P, Rajagopalan R, et al. Endoscopic skull base training using 3D printed models with pre-existing pathology. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(3):753–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Du YQ, Qiao GY, Yin YH, Li T, Tong HY, Yu XG. Usefulness of 3D printed Models in the management of Complex Craniovertebral Junction Anomalies: choice of treatment strategy, design of Screw Trajectory, and Protection of Vertebral Artery. World Neurosurg. 2020;133:e722–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. He S, Ye C, Zhong N, Yang M, Yang X, Xiao J. Customized anterior craniocervical reconstruction via a modified high-cervical retropharyngeal approach following resection of a spinal tumor involving C1-2/C1-3. J Neurosurg Spine 2019:1–9.

  46. Pacione D, Tanweer O, Berman P, Harter DH. The utility of a multimaterial 3D printed model for surgical planning of complex deformity of the skull base and craniovertebral junction. J Neurosurg. 2016;125(5):1194–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Barber SR, Wong K, Kanumuri V, et al. Augmented reality, Surgical Navigation, and 3D Printing for Transcanal Endoscopic Approach to the Petrous apex. OTO Open. 2018;2(4):2473974X18804492.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Chae R, Sharon JD, Kournoutas I, et al. Replicating Skull Base anatomy with 3D Technologies: a comparative study using 3D-scanned and 3D-printed models of the temporal bone. Otol Neurotol. 2020;41(3):e392–e403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ritacco LE, Di Lella F, Mancino A, Gonzalez Bernaldo de Quiros F, Boccio C, Milano FE. 3D printed Models and Navigation for Skull Base surgery: Case Report and virtual validation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;216:1025.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rose AS, Kimbell JS, Webster CE, Harrysson OL, Formeister EJ, Buchman CA. Multi-material 3D models for temporal bone Surgical Simulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2015;124(7):528–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. McMillan A, Kocharyan A, Dekker SE, et al. Comparison of materials used for 3D-Printing temporal bone models to Simulate Surgical dissection. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2020. 3489420918273.

  52. Bone TM, Mowry SE. Content validity of temporal bone models printed Via Inexpensive Methods and Materials. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(8):1183–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Takahashi K, Morita Y, Ohshima S, et al. Creating an optimal 3D printed model for temporal bone dissection training. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2017;126(7):530–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Rose AS, Webster CE, Harrysson OL, Formeister EJ, Rawal RB, Iseli CE. Pre-operative simulation of pediatric mastoid surgery with 3D-printed temporal bone models. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(5):740–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Mowry SE, Jammal H, Myer Ct, Solares CA, Weinberger P. A novel temporal bone Simulation Model using 3D Printing techniques. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(9):1562–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Suzuki M, Hagiwara A, Ogawa Y, Ono H. Rapid-prototyped temporal bone and inner-ear models replicated by adjusting computed tomography thresholds. J Laryngol Otol. 2007;121(11):1025–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Haffner M, Quinn A, Hsieh TY, Strong EB, Steele T. Optimization of 3D print material for the recreation of patient-specific temporal bone models. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2018;127(5):338–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Freiser ME, Ghodadra A, Hart L, Griffith C, Jabbour N. Safety of drilling 3-Dimensional-printed temporal Bones. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(9):797–801.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Freiser ME, Ghodadra A, Hirsch BE, McCall AA. Evaluation of 3D printed temporal bone models in Preparation for Middle Cranial Fossa surgery. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(2):246–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Nguyen Y, Mamelle E, De Seta D, Sterkers O, Bernardeschi D, Torres R. Modifications to a 3D-printed temporal bone model for augmented stapes fixation surgery teaching. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;274(7):2733–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 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;125(10):2353–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hochman JB, Sepehri N, Rampersad V, et al. Mixed reality temporal bone surgical dissector: mechanical design. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;43:23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Da Cruz MJ, Francis HW. Face and content validation of a novel three-dimensional printed temporal bone for surgical skills development. J Laryngol Otol. 2015;129(Suppl 3):23–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Cohen J, Reyes SA. Creation of a 3D printed temporal bone model from clinical CT data. Am J Otolaryngol. 2015;36(5):619–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Skrzat J, Zdilla MJ, Brzegowy P, Holda M. 3 D printed replica of the human temporal bone intended for teaching gross anatomy. Folia Med Cracov. 2019;59(3):23–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Bento RF, Rocha BA, Freitas EL, Balsalobre FA. Otobone ((R)): three-dimensional printed temporal bone Biomodel for Simulation of Surgical Procedures. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;23(4):e451–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Gadaleta DJ, Huang D, Rankin N, et al. 3D printed temporal bone as a tool for otologic surgery simulation. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020;41(3):102273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Mick PT, Arnoldner C, Mainprize JG, Symons SP, Chen JM. Face validity study of an artificial temporal bone for simulation surgery. Otol Neurotol. 2013;34(7):1305–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Chauvelot J, Laurent C, Le Coz G, et al. Morphological validation of a novel bi-material 3D-printed model of temporal bone for middle ear surgery education. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(6):304.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Suzuki M, Ogawa Y, Kawano A, Hagiwara A, Yamaguchi H, Ono H. Rapid prototyping of temporal bone for surgical training and medical education. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004;124(4):400–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Longfield EA, Brickman TM, Jeyakumar A. 3D printed Pediatric temporal bone: a novel training model. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(5):793–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Wong V, Unger B, Pisa J, Gousseau M, Westerberg B, Hochman JB. Construct validation of a printed bone substitute in Otologic Education. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(7):e698–e703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Wanibuchi M, Noshiro S, Sugino T, et al. Training for Skull Base surgery with a Colored temporal bone model created by three-dimensional Printing Technology. World Neurosurg. 2016;91:66–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Hochman JB, Kraut J, Kazmerik K, Unger BJ. Generation of a 3D printed temporal bone model with internal fidelity and validation of the mechanical construct. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;150(3):448–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Wu CT, Lee ST, Chen JF, Lin KL, Yen SH. Computer-aided design for three-dimensional titanium mesh used for repairing skull base bone defect in pediatric neurofibromatosis type 1. A novel approach combining biomodeling and neuronavigation. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2008;44(2):133–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Ahmed S, VanKoevering KK, Kline S, Green GE, Arts HA. Middle cranial fossa approach to repair tegmen defects assisted by three-dimensionally printed temporal bone models. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(10):2347–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. VanKoevering KK, Gao RW, Ahmed S, Green GE, Arts HA. A 3D-Printed lateral Skull Base Implant for Repair of Tegmen defects: a Case Series. Otol Neurotol 2020.

  78. Tai BL, Rooney D, Stephenson F, et al. Development of a 3D-printed external ventricular drain placement simulator: technical note. J Neurosurg. 2015;123(4):1070–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Essayed WI, Unadkat P, Hosny A, et al. 3D printing and intraoperative neuronavigation tailoring for skull base reconstruction after extended endoscopic endonasal surgery: proof of concept. J Neurosurg. 2018;130(1):248–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Warren FM, Balachandran R, Fitzpatrick JM, Labadie RF. Percutaneous cochlear access using bone-mounted, customized drill guides: demonstration of concept in vitro. Otol Neurotol. 2007;28(3):325–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Lopponen H, Holma T, Sorri M, et al. Computed tomography data based rapid prototyping model of the temporal bone before cochlear implant surgery. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1997;529:47–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Mukherjee P, Cheng K, Flanagan S, Greenberg S. Utility of 3D printed temporal bones in pre-surgical planning for complex BoneBridge cases. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;274(8):3021–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Canzi P, Marconi S, Manfrin M, et al. From CT scanning to 3D printing technology: a new method for the preoperative planning of a transcutaneous bone-conduction hearing device. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2018;38(3):251–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Suzuki R, Taniguchi N, Uchida F, et al. Transparent model of temporal bone and vestibulocochlear organ made by 3D printing. Anat Sci Int. 2018;93(1):154–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Kamrava B, Gerstenhaber JA, Amin M, Har-El YE, Roehm PC. Preliminary Model for the design of a Custom Middle ear prosthesis. Otol Neurotol. 2017;38(6):839–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Nomura Y, Tanaka T, Kobayashi H, Kimura Y, Soejima Y, Sawabe M. A 3-Dimensional Model of the human round window membrane. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2019;128(6suppl):103S–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Kuru I, Maier H, Muller M, Lenarz T, Lueth TC. A 3D-printed functioning anatomical human middle ear model. Hear Res. 2016;340:204–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Dhanasingh A, Dietz A, Jolly C, Roland P. Human inner-ear malformation types captured in 3D. J Int Adv Otol. 2019;15(1):77–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Kozin ED, Remenschneider AK, Cheng S, Nakajima HH, Lee DJ. Three-dimensional printed prosthesis for repair of Superior Canal Dehiscence. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;153(4):616–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Hirsch JD, Vincent RL, Eisenman DJ. Surgical reconstruction of the ossicular chain with custom 3D printed ossicular prosthesis. 3D Print Med. 2017;3(1):7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Gargiulo P, Arnadottir I, Gislason M, Edmunds K, Olafsson I. New directions in 3D medical modeling: 3D-Printing anatomy and functions in Neurosurgical Planning. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:1439643.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Makris DN, Pappas EP, Zoros E, et al. Characterization of a novel 3D printed patient specific phantom for quality assurance in cranial stereotactic radiosurgery applications. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(10):105009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Damon A, Clifton W, Valero-Moreno F, Quinones-Hinojosa A. Cost-effective method for 3-Dimensional Printing Dynamic Multiobject and Patient-Specific Brain Tumor Models: technical note. World Neurosurg. 2020;140:173–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Liu S, Wang H, Wang C, et al. Dosimetry verification of 3D-printed individual template based on CT-MRI fusion for radioactive (125)I seed implantation in recurrent high-grade gliomas. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2019;11(3):235–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Mackle EC, Shapey J, Maneas E et al. Patient-specific polyvinyl Alcohol Phantom fabrication with Ultrasound and X-Ray contrast for brain tumor surgery planning. J Vis Exp 2020(161).

  96. Grosch AS, Schroder T, Schroder T, Onken J, Picht T. Development and initial evaluation of a novel simulation model for comprehensive brain tumor surgery training. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020;162(8):1957–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Waran V, Narayanan V, Karuppiah R, Owen SL, Aziz T. Utility of multimaterial 3D printers in creating models with pathological entities to enhance the training experience of neurosurgeons. J Neurosurg. 2014;120(2):489–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. He X, Liu M, Zhang M, et al. A novel three-dimensional template combined with MR-guided (125)I brachytherapy for recurrent glioblastoma. Radiat Oncol. 2020;15(1):146.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Ploch CC, Mansi C, Jayamohan J, Kuhl E. Using 3D Printing to create personalized brain models for neurosurgical training and Preoperative Planning. World Neurosurg. 2016;90:668–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Lan Q, Zhu Q, Xu L, Xu T. Application of 3D-Printed Craniocerebral Model in simulated surgery for Complex Intracranial Lesions. World Neurosurg. 2020;134:e761–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. van de Belt TH, Nijmeijer H, Grim D, et al. Patient-specific actual-size three-dimensional printed models for Patient Education in Glioma Treatment: First Experiences. World Neurosurg. 2018;117:e99–e105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Brandmeir NJ, McInerney J, Zacharia BE. The use of custom 3D printed stereotactic frames for laser interstitial thermal ablation: technical note. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;41(4):E3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Thawani JP, Singh N, Pisapia JM, et al. Three-Dimensional printed modeling of diffuse Low-Grade Gliomas and Associated White Matter Tract anatomy. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(4):635–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Javan R, Davidson D, Javan A. Nerves of steel: a low-cost method for 3D Printing the cranial nerves. J Digit Imaging. 2017;30(5):576–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Bowen L, Benech R, Shafi A, et al. Custom-made three-dimensional models for craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(1):292–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Soldozy S, Yagmurlu K, Akyeampong DK, et al. Three-dimensional printing and craniosynostosis surgery. Childs Nerv Syst. 2021;37(8):2487–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Andrew TW, Baylan J, Mittermiller PA, et al. Virtual Surgical Planning decreases Operative Time for isolated single suture and multi-suture craniosynostosis repair. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(12):e2038.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Dumas BM, Nava A, Law HZ, et al. Three-Dimensional Printing for Craniofacial surgery: a single Institution’s 5-Year experience. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(6):729–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Jimenez Ormabera B, Diez Valle R, Zaratiegui Fernandez J, Llorente Ortega M, Unamuno Inurritegui X, Tejada Solis S. [3D printing in neurosurgery: a specific model for patients with craniosynostosis]. Neurocirugia (Astur). 2017;28(6):260–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Elbanoby TM, Elbatawy AM, Aly GM, Sharafuddin MA, Abdelfattah UA. 3D printing guided surgery in the treatment of unicoronal craniosynostosis orbital dysmorphology. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;24(4):423–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Kim PS, Choi CH, Han IH, Lee JH, Choi HJ, Lee JI. Obtaining informed consent using patient specific 3D Printing Cerebral Aneurysm Model. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2019;62(4):398–404.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. 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;32(6):963–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Nagassa RG, McMenamin PG, Adams JW, Quayle MR, Rosenfeld JV. Advanced 3D printed model of middle cerebral artery aneurysms for neurosurgery simulation. 3D Print Med. 2019;5(1):11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Wang JL, Yuan ZG, Qian GL, Bao WQ, Jin GL. 3D printing of intracranial aneurysm based on intracranial digital subtraction angiography and its clinical application. Med (Baltim). 2018;97(24):e11103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Wang L, Ye X, Hao Q, et al. Comparison of two three-dimensional printed models of Complex Intracranial Aneurysms for Surgical Simulation. World Neurosurg. 2017;103:671–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Wang L, Ye X, Hao Q, et al. Three-dimensional intracranial middle cerebral artery aneurysm models for aneurysm surgery and training. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;50:77–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Ryan JR, Almefty KK, Nakaji P, Frakes DH. Cerebral aneurysm clipping surgery Simulation using patient-specific 3D Printing and Silicone Casting. World Neurosurg. 2016;88:175–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Kondo K, Nemoto M, Masuda H, et al. Anatomical reproducibility of a Head Model molded by a three-dimensional printer. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2015;55(7):592–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Javan R, Herrin D, Tangestanipoor A. Understanding spatially Complex Segmental and Branch anatomy using 3D Printing: liver, lung, prostate, coronary arteries, and Circle of Willis. Acad Radiol. 2016;23(9):1183–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Andereggen L, Gralla J, Andres RH, et al. Stereolithographic models in the interdisciplinary planning of treatment for complex intracranial aneurysms. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(9):1711–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Nagesh SVS, Hinaman J, Sommer K et al. A simulation platform using 3D printed neurovascular phantoms for clinical utility evaluation of new imaging technologies. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2018;10578.

  122. Kaneko N, Mashiko T, Namba K, Tateshima S, Watanabe E, Kawai K. A patient-specific intracranial aneurysm model with endothelial lining: a novel in vitro approach to bridge the gap between biology and flow dynamics. J Neurointerv Surg. 2018;10(3):306–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Bairamian D, Liu S, Eftekhar B. Virtual reality angiogram vs 3-Dimensional printed angiogram as an Educational tool-A comparative study. Neurosurgery. 2019;85(2):E343–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Leal A, Souza M, Nohama P. Additive Manufacturing of 3D biomodels as adjuvant in intracranial aneurysm clipping. Artif Organs. 2019;43(1):E9–E15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Chivukula VK, Levitt MR, Clark A, et al. Reconstructing patient-specific cerebral aneurysm vasculature for in vitro investigations and treatment efficacy assessments. J Clin Neurosci. 2019;61:153–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Liu Y, Gao Q, Du S, et al. Fabrication of cerebral aneurysm simulator with a desktop 3D printer. Sci Rep. 2017;7:44301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Lan Q, Chen A, Zhang T, et al. Development of three-dimensional printed craniocerebral models for simulated neurosurgery. World Neurosurg. 2016;91:434–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Frolich AM, Spallek J, Brehmer L, et al. 3D Printing of Intracranial Aneurysms using fused deposition modeling offers highly accurate replications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(1):120–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Anderson JR, Thompson WL, Alkattan AK, et al. Three-dimensional printing of anatomically accurate, patient specific intracranial aneurysm models. J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;8(5):517–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Xu Y, Tian W, Wei Z, et al. Microcatheter shaping using three-dimensional printed models for intracranial aneurysm coiling. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020;12(3):308–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Russ M, O’Hara R, Setlur Nagesh SV et al. Treatment Planning for Image-Guided neuro-vascular interventions using patient-specific 3D printed phantoms. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2015;9417.

  132. Khan IS, Kelly PD, Singer RJ. Prototyping of cerebral vasculature physical models. Surg Neurol Int. 2014;5:11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Namba K, Higaki A, Kaneko N, Mashiko T, Nemoto S, Watanabe E. Microcatheter shaping for intracranial aneurysm coiling using the 3-Dimensional Printing Rapid Prototyping Technology: preliminary result in the First 10 consecutive cases. World Neurosurg. 2015;84(1):178–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Sullivan S, Aguilar-Salinas P, Santos R, Beier AD, Hanel RA. Three-dimensional printing and neuroendovascular simulation for the treatment of a pediatric intracranial aneurysm: case report. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2018;22(6):672–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Ishibashi T, Takao H, Suzuki T, et al. Tailor-made shaping of microcatheters using three-dimensional printed vessel models for endovascular coil embolization. Comput Biol Med. 2016;77:59–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Mashiko T, Kaneko N, Konno T, Otani K, Nagayama R, Watanabe E. Training in cerebral aneurysm clipping using self-made 3-Dimensional models. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(4):681–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Mashiko T, Otani K, Kawano R, et al. Development of three-dimensional hollow elastic model for cerebral aneurysm clipping simulation enabling rapid and low cost prototyping. World Neurosurg. 2015;83(3):351–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Kono K, Shintani A, Okada H, Terada T. Preoperative simulations of endovascular treatment for a cerebral aneurysm using a patient-specific vascular silicone model. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2013;53(5):347–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Wurm G, Lehner M, Tomancok B, Kleiser R, Nussbaumer K. Cerebrovascular biomodeling for aneurysm surgery: simulation-based training by means of rapid prototyping technologies. Surg Innov. 2011;18(3):294–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Wurm G, Tomancok B, Pogady P, Holl K, Trenkler J. Cerebrovascular stereolithographic biomodeling for aneurysm surgery. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2004;100(1):139–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Karmonik C, Anderson JR, Elias S, et al. Four-dimensional phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging protocol optimization using patient-specific 3-Dimensional printed replicas for in vivo imaging before and after Flow Diverter Placement. World Neurosurg. 2017;105:775–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Tsang AC, Lai SS, Chung WC, et al. Blood flow in intracranial aneurysms treated with Pipeline embolization devices: computational simulation and verification with Doppler ultrasonography on phantom models. Ultrasonography. 2015;34(2):98–108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. Knox K, Kerber CW, Singel SA, Bailey MJ, Imbesi SG. Rapid prototyping to create vascular replicas from CT scan data: making tools to teach, rehearse, and choose treatment strategies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;65(1):47–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Ho WH, Tshimanga IJ, Ngoepe MN, Jermy MC, Geoghegan PH. Evaluation of a Desktop 3D printed rigid refractive-indexed-matched Flow Phantom for PIV measurements on cerebral aneurysms. Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2020;11(1):14–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Benet A, Plata-Bello J, Abla AA, Acevedo-Bolton G, Saloner D, Lawton MT. Implantation of 3D-Printed patient-specific aneurysm models into cadaveric specimens: a New Training paradigm to allow for improvements in cerebrovascular surgery and research. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:939387.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Karakas AB, Govsa F, Ozer MA, Eraslan C. 3D brain imaging in vascular segmentation of cerebral venous sinuses. J Digit Imaging. 2019;32(2):314–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Govsa F, Karakas AB, Ozer MA, Eraslan C. Development of life-size patient-specific 3D-Printed dural venous models for Preoperative Planning. World Neurosurg. 2018;110:e141–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Conti A, Pontoriero A, Iati G, et al. 3D-Printing of Arteriovenous Malformations for Radiosurgical Treatment: pushing anatomy understanding to real boundaries. Cureus. 2016;8(4):e594.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Dong M, Chen G, Li J, et al. Three-dimensional brain arteriovenous malformation models for clinical use and resident training. Med (Baltim). 2018;97(3):e9516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Shah A, Jankharia B, Goel A. Three-dimensional model printing for surgery on arteriovenous malformations. Neurol India. 2017;65(6):1350–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Thawani JP, Pisapia JM, Singh N, et al. Three-Dimensional printed modeling of an Arteriovenous Malformation Including Blood Flow. World Neurosurg. 2016;90:675–83. e672.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Kaneko N, Ullman H, Ali F, et al. In Vitro modeling of human brain arteriovenous malformation for Endovascular Simulation and Flow Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2020;141:e873–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. 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;16(5):584–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Ionita CN, Mokin M, Varble N, et al. Challenges and limitations of patient-specific vascular phantom fabrication using 3D polyjet printing. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2014;9038:90380 M.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. Costa PF, Albers HJ, Linssen JEA, et al. Mimicking arterial thrombosis in a 3D-printed microfluidic in vitro vascular model based on computed tomography angiography data. Lab Chip. 2017;17(16):2785–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. O’Hara RP, Chand A, Vidiyala S et al. Advanced 3D mesh manipulation in Stereolithographic Files and Post-Print Processing for the Manufacturing of Patient-Specific Vascular Flow Phantoms. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2016;9789.

  157. Martinez-Galdamez M, Escartin J, Pabon B, et al. Optical coherence tomography: translation from 3D-printed vascular models of the anterior cerebral circulation to the first human images of implanted surface modified flow diverters. Interv Neuroradiol. 2019;25(2):150–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Maza G, VanKoevering KK, Yanez-Siller JC, et al. Surgical simulation of a catastrophic internal carotid artery injury: a laser-sintered model. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(1):53–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Xu WH, Liu J, Li ML, Sun ZY, Chen J, Wu JH. 3D printing of intracranial artery stenosis based on the source images of magnetic resonance angiograph. Ann Transl Med. 2014;2(8):74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  160. Reddy AS, Liu Y, Cockrum J et al. Construction of a comprehensive endovascular test bed for research and device development in mechanical thrombectomy in stroke. J Neurosurg 2020:1–8.

  161. Wang Q, Guo W, Liu Y, et al. Application of a 3D-Printed Navigation Mold in puncture drainage for Brainstem Hemorrhage. J Surg Res. 2020;245:99–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. Marszalek A, Szylberg L, Wisniewski S. Pathologic aspects of skull base tumors. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2016;21(4):288–303.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  163. Thust SC, Yousry T. Imaging of skull base tumours. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2016;21(4):304–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. Kunimatsu A, Kunimatsu N. Skull Base Tumors and Tumor-Like Lesions: a Pictorial Review. Pol J Radiol. 2017;82:398–409.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  165. McDermott MW. Current treatment of meningiomas. Curr Opin Neurol. 1996;9(6):409–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Adappa ND, Lee JY, Chiu AG, Palmer JN. Olfactory groove meningioma. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2011;44(4):965–80. ix.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Chi JH, McDermott MW. Tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Neurosurg Focus. 2003;14(6):e6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Benjamin V, Russell SM. The microsurgical nuances of resecting tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Neurosurgery. 2005;56(2 Suppl):411–7. discussion 411–417.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Palani A, Panigrahi MK, Purohit AK. Tuberculum sellae meningiomas: a series of 41 cases; surgical and ophthalmological outcomes with proposal of a new prognostic scoring system. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2012;3(3):286–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  170. Magill ST, Morshed RA, Lucas CG, et al. Tuberculum sellae meningiomas: grading scale to assess surgical outcomes using the transcranial versus transsphenoidal approach. Neurosurg Focus. 2018;44(4):E9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Bakay L. Olfactory meningiomas. The missed diagnosis. JAMA. 1984;251(1):53–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Jethanamest D, Morris LG, Sikora AG, Kutler DI. Esthesioneuroblastoma: a population-based analysis of survival and prognostic factors. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133(3):276–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Kadish S, Goodman M, Wang CC. Olfactory neuroblastoma. A clinical analysis of 17 cases. Cancer. 1976;37(3):1571–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Chao KS, Kaplan C, Simpson JR, et al. Esthesioneuroblastoma: the impact of treatment modality. Head Neck. 2001;23(9):749–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Parmar H, Gujar S, Shah G, Mukherji SK. Imaging of the anterior skull base. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2009;19(3):427–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Madani G, Beale TJ, Lund VJ. Imaging of sinonasal tumors. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2009;30(1):25–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Barnes L. Intestinal-type adenocarcinoma of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Am J Surg Pathol. 1986;10(3):192–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Frierson HF Jr., Mills SE, Fechner RE, Taxy JB, Levine PA. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma. An aggressive neoplasm derived from schneiderian epithelium and distinct from olfactory neuroblastoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1986;10(11):771–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Bryan RN, Sessions RB, Horowitz BL. Radiographic management of juvenile angiofibromas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1981;2(2):157–66.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  180. Roche M, Humphreys H, Smyth E, et al. A twelve-year review of central nervous system bacterial abscesses; presentation and aetiology. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2003;9(8):803–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. Ciobanu AM, Rosca T, Vladescu CT, et al. Frontal epidural empyema (Pott’s puffy tumor) associated with Mycoplasma and depression. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2014;55(3 Suppl):1203–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Jung SH, Aniceto GS, Rodriguez IZ, Diaz RG. Recuero, II. Posttraumatic frontal bone osteomyelitis. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2009;2(2):61–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  183. Aggarwal SK, Bhavana K, Keshri A, Kumar R, Srivastava A. Frontal sinus mucocele with orbital complications: management by varied surgical approaches. Asian J Neurosurg. 2012;7(3):135–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  184. Rubin JS, Lund VJ, Salmon B. Frontoethmoidectomy in the treatment of mucoceles. A neglected operation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986;112(4):434–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Melmed S. Pathogenesis of pituitary tumors. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2011;7(5):257–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Tang Y, Booth T, Steward M, Solbach T, Wilhelm T. The imaging of conditions affecting the cavernous sinus. Clin Radiol. 2010;65(11):937–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Cottier JP, Destrieux C, Brunereau L, et al. Cavernous sinus invasion by pituitary adenoma: MR imaging. Radiology. 2000;215(2):463–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Hardy J, Vezina JL. Transsphenoidal neurosurgery of intracranial neoplasm. Adv Neurol. 1976;15:261–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Chatzellis E, Alexandraki KI, Androulakis II, Kaltsas G. Aggressive pituitary tumors. Neuroendocrinology. 2015;101(2):87–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Knosp E, Steiner E, Kitz K, Matula C. Pituitary adenomas with invasion of the cavernous sinus space: a magnetic resonance imaging classification compared with surgical findings. Neurosurgery. 1993;33(4):610–7. discussion 617–618.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Hoffman HJ. Surgical management of craniopharyngioma. Pediatr Neurosurg. 1994;21(Suppl 1):44–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Lubuulwa J, Lei T. Pathological and topographical classification of Craniopharyngiomas: A literature review. J Neurol Surg Rep. 2016;77(3):e121–127.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  193. Yasargil MG, Curcic M, Kis M, Siegenthaler G, Teddy PJ, Roth P. Total removal of craniopharyngiomas. Approaches and long-term results in 144 patients. J Neurosurg. 1990;73(1):3–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. Samii M, Tatagiba M. Surgical management of craniopharyngiomas: a review. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 1997;37(2):141–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. Kassam AB, Gardner PA, SnyDerman CH, Carrau RL, Mintz AH, Prevedello DM. Expanded endonasal approach, a fully endoscopic transnasal approach for the resection of midline suprasellar craniopharyngiomas: a new classification based on the infundibulum. J Neurosurg. 2008;108(4):715–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  196. Pascual JM, Gonzalez-Llanos F, Barrios L, Roda JM. Intraventricular craniopharyngiomas: topographical classification and surgical approach selection based on an extensive overview. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2004;146(8):785–802.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. al-Mefty O, Ayoubi S. Clinoidal meningiomas. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien). 1991;53:92–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. Copeland WR, Van Gompel JJ, Giannini C, Eckel LJ, Koeller KK, Link MJ. Can Preoperative Imaging Predict Tumor involvement of the Anterior Clinoid in Clinoid Region Meningiomas? Neurosurgery. 2015;77(4):525–9. discussion 530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. Cantore WA. Neural orbital tumors. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2000;11(5):367–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Bosch MM, Wichmann WW, Boltshauser E, Landau K. Optic nerve sheath meningiomas in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(3):379–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  201. Shapey J, Sabin HI, Danesh-Meyer HV, Kaye AH. Diagnosis and management of optic nerve sheath meningiomas. J Clin Neurosci. 2013;20(8):1045–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. Parker RT, Ovens CA, Fraser CL, Samarawickrama C. Optic nerve sheath meningiomas: prevalence, impact, and management strategies. Eye Brain. 2018;10:85–99.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  203. Ringel F, Cedzich C, Schramm J. Microsurgical technique and results of a series of 63 spheno-orbital meningiomas. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(4 Suppl 2):214–21. discussion 221 – 212.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  204. Bonnal J, Thibaut A, Brotchi J, Born J. Invading meningiomas of the sphenoid ridge. J Neurosurg. 1980;53(5):587–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. Sindou MP, Alaywan M. Most intracranial meningiomas are not cleavable tumors: anatomic-surgical evidence and angiographic predictibility. Neurosurgery. 1998;42(3):476–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  206. McCracken DJ, Higginbotham RA, Boulter JH, et al. Degree of vascular encasement in Sphenoid Wing Meningiomas predicts postoperative ischemic complications. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(6):957–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. Roser F, Nakamura M, Jacobs C, Vorkapic P, Samii M. Sphenoid wing meningiomas with osseous involvement. Surg Neurol. 2005;64(1):37–43. discussion 43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  208. Petersson F. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a review. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2015;32(1):54–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  209. Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, et al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer staging Manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more personalized approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(2):93–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  210. Takami T, Ohata K, Goto T, Tsuyuguchi N, Nishio A, Hara M. Surgical management of petroclival chordomas: report of eight cases. Skull Base. 2006;16(2):85–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  211. Bondy ML, Scheurer ME, Malmer B, et al. Brain tumor epidemiology: consensus from the Brain Tumor Epidemiology Consortium. Cancer. 2008;113(7 Suppl):1953–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA

    Arafat Ali

  2. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Jonathan M. Morris

  3. Division of Imaging Research and Applied Anatomy, Department of Radiology, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA

    Summer J. Decker

  4. Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Yu-hui Huang

  5. Department of Research and Scientific Affairs, GE HealthCare, New York, NY, USA

    Nicole Wake

  6. Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research, Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA

    Nicole Wake

  7. Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Frank J Rybicki

  8. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA

    David H Ballard

Authors
  1. Arafat Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan M. Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Summer J. Decker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yu-hui Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicole Wake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Frank J Rybicki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David H Ballard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.A. performed the literature search and wrote the manuscript. All authors provided expert opinion, reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David H Ballard.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ali, A., Morris, J.M., Decker, S.J. et al. Clinical situations for which 3D printing is considered an appropriate representation or extension of data contained in a medical imaging examination: neurosurgical and otolaryngologic conditions. 3D Print Med 9, 33 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-023-00192-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-023-00192-w

Keywords

3D Printing in Medicine

ISSN: 2365-6271

Contact us