Three-dimensional printing versus conventional machining in the creation of a meatal urethral dilator: development and mechanical testing.
Intermittent urethral catheterisation
Three-dimensional printing
Urethral stricture
Urology
Journal
Biomedical engineering online
ISSN: 1475-925X
Titre abrégé: Biomed Eng Online
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147518
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jul 2020
01 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
11
05
2020
accepted:
23
06
2020
entrez:
3
7
2020
pubmed:
3
7
2020
medline:
8
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a promising technology, but the limitations are often poorly understood. We compare different 3D printing methods with conventional machining techniques in manufacturing meatal urethral dilators which were recently removed from the Australian market. A prototype dilator was 3D printed vertically orientated on a low-cost fused deposition modelling (FDM) 3D printer in polylactic acid (PLA) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). It was also 3D printed horizontally orientated in ABS on a high-end FDM 3D printer with soluble support material, as well as on an SLS 3D printer in medical nylon. The dilator was also machined in stainless steel using a lathe. All dilators were tested mechanically in a custom rig by hanging calibrated weights from the handle until the dilator snapped. The horizontally printed ABS dilator experienced failure at a greater load than the vertically printed PLA and ABS dilators, respectively (503 g vs 283 g vs 163 g, p < 0.001). The SLS nylon dilator and machined steel dilator did not fail. The steel dilator is the most expensive with a quantity of five at 98 USD each, but this decreases to 30 USD each for a quantity of 1000. In contrast, the cost for the SLS dilator is 33 USD each for five and 27 USD each for 1000. Low-cost FDM 3D printing is not a replacement for conventional manufacturing. 3D printing is best used for patient-specific parts, prototyping or manufacturing complex parts that have additional functionality that cannot otherwise be achieved.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a promising technology, but the limitations are often poorly understood. We compare different 3D printing methods with conventional machining techniques in manufacturing meatal urethral dilators which were recently removed from the Australian market.
METHODS
METHODS
A prototype dilator was 3D printed vertically orientated on a low-cost fused deposition modelling (FDM) 3D printer in polylactic acid (PLA) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). It was also 3D printed horizontally orientated in ABS on a high-end FDM 3D printer with soluble support material, as well as on an SLS 3D printer in medical nylon. The dilator was also machined in stainless steel using a lathe. All dilators were tested mechanically in a custom rig by hanging calibrated weights from the handle until the dilator snapped.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The horizontally printed ABS dilator experienced failure at a greater load than the vertically printed PLA and ABS dilators, respectively (503 g vs 283 g vs 163 g, p < 0.001). The SLS nylon dilator and machined steel dilator did not fail. The steel dilator is the most expensive with a quantity of five at 98 USD each, but this decreases to 30 USD each for a quantity of 1000. In contrast, the cost for the SLS dilator is 33 USD each for five and 27 USD each for 1000.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Low-cost FDM 3D printing is not a replacement for conventional manufacturing. 3D printing is best used for patient-specific parts, prototyping or manufacturing complex parts that have additional functionality that cannot otherwise be achieved.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32611431
doi: 10.1186/s12938-020-00799-8
pii: 10.1186/s12938-020-00799-8
pmc: PMC7329536
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
55Références
Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2014 Jul 12;2(2):127-35
pubmed: 25374914
Nat Rev Urol. 2018 Apr;15(4):213-221
pubmed: 29405206
World J Surg. 2017 Jan;41(1):314-319
pubmed: 27822724
BJU Int. 2017 Apr;119(4):598-604
pubmed: 27862866
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2006 Jan-Feb;45(1):49-54
pubmed: 16429216
World J Urol. 2018 Feb;36(2):201-207
pubmed: 29127451
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1986;20(2):89-92
pubmed: 3749823
P T. 2014 Oct;39(10):704-11
pubmed: 25336867
BJU Int. 2018 Sep;122(3):360-361
pubmed: 29509303
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Apr;27(4):420-422
pubmed: 28061038
Urology. 2018 May;115:184
pubmed: 29548868
J Robot Surg. 2018 Mar;12(1):27-33
pubmed: 28108975
J Healthc Eng. 2019 Mar 21;2019:5340616
pubmed: 31019667
J Endourol. 2015 Aug;29(8):933-8
pubmed: 25811682
BJU Int. 2004 Mar;93(4):596-7
pubmed: 15008738
Int Braz J Urol. 2017 May-Jun;43(3):470-475
pubmed: 28338309
Eur Urol. 2016 Feb;69(2):377-9
pubmed: 26431913
BJU Int. 2019 May;123(5):834-845
pubmed: 30246936
Med J Aust. 2017 Aug 7;207(3):102-103
pubmed: 28764624
World J Urol. 2016 Mar;34(3):337-45
pubmed: 26162845
Br J Urol. 1994 Jun;73(6):692-5
pubmed: 8032838
J Surg Res. 2014 Jun 15;189(2):193-7
pubmed: 24721602
BJU Int. 2020 Jan;125(1):17-27
pubmed: 31622020
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 7;14(1):e0210441
pubmed: 30615689
3D Print Med. 2019 Feb 19;5(1):4
pubmed: 30783869
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Jan;49(1):270-279
pubmed: 30069968
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2017 Jun;14(6):D80-D85
pubmed: 28165927
J Endourol. 2015 Jan;29(1):58-62
pubmed: 24983138
J Surg Educ. 2014 Sep-Oct;71(5):762-7
pubmed: 24776857