Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2026
Clinical utility of a 3D-printed guide and vascular model for deep and superficial inferior epigastric vessels in breast reconstruction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bae Juyoung, Woo Kyong-Je, Choi Yun, Rhu Jinsoo, Kim Haeun, Choi Jeongin, Mun Goo-Hyun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although 3D-printing has been applied across multiple surgical fields, comparative evidence for computed tomography angiography (CTA)-derived patient-specific guides in abdominal-based breast reconstruction remains limited. We evaluated a CTA-derived 3D-printed surgical guide and vascular model incorporating both deep and superficial inferior epigastric vessels.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed abdominal-based breast reconstructions from June 2024 to September 2025 by comparing patient-specific 3D-printed and CTA-only planning data. Outcomes of interest included flap harvest time, postoperative pain, complications, discrepancy between guide-based and manual CTA-derived deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) surface markings, and discrepancy between guide-based superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) markings and intraoperatively identified SIEV locations.
RESULTS: Among the 130 patients (CTA-only, n=75; 3D-printed, n=55), the 3D-printed group had shorter overall flap harvest time (184.0 vs. 158.0 min; p=0.039) and shorter harvest time for unilateral, unipedicled DIEP flaps (182.5 vs. 158.0 min; p=0.025). Fasciotomy length in unipedicled DIEP flaps was shorter and visual analog scale pain scores from postoperative days 3-5 were lower in the 3D-printed group (all p<0.05), whereas opioid consumption and complications were comparable between the groups. The median radial discrepancy between the two CTA-derived DIEP surface-marking methods was 5.05 mm and median lateral discrepancy between the guide-based marking and intraoperatively identified SIEV location was 1.00 mm.
CONCLUSIONS: The 3D-printed workflow was associated with shorter flap harvest time and shorter fasciotomy length in unipedicled DIEP flaps. These findings indicate a potential improvement in operative efficiency and further studies are needed to determine its clinical significance.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed abdominal-based breast reconstructions from June 2024 to September 2025 by comparing patient-specific 3D-printed and CTA-only planning data. Outcomes of interest included flap harvest time, postoperative pain, complications, discrepancy between guide-based and manual CTA-derived deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) surface markings, and discrepancy between guide-based superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) markings and intraoperatively identified SIEV locations.
RESULTS: Among the 130 patients (CTA-only, n=75; 3D-printed, n=55), the 3D-printed group had shorter overall flap harvest time (184.0 vs. 158.0 min; p=0.039) and shorter harvest time for unilateral, unipedicled DIEP flaps (182.5 vs. 158.0 min; p=0.025). Fasciotomy length in unipedicled DIEP flaps was shorter and visual analog scale pain scores from postoperative days 3-5 were lower in the 3D-printed group (all p<0.05), whereas opioid consumption and complications were comparable between the groups. The median radial discrepancy between the two CTA-derived DIEP surface-marking methods was 5.05 mm and median lateral discrepancy between the guide-based marking and intraoperatively identified SIEV location was 1.00 mm.
CONCLUSIONS: The 3D-printed workflow was associated with shorter flap harvest time and shorter fasciotomy length in unipedicled DIEP flaps. These findings indicate a potential improvement in operative efficiency and further studies are needed to determine its clinical significance.