Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 6, 2025
Development and Evaluation of 3D-Printed Cardiovascular Phantoms for Interventional Planning and Training
Published on: January 18, 2021
Individualized medicine using 3D printing technology in gynecology: a scoping review
Carly M Cooke1, Teresa E Flaxman1,2,3, Lindsey Sikora4
1Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Newborn Care, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Objective:
Developments in 3-dimensional (3D) printing technology has made it possible to produce high quality, affordable 3D printed models for use in medicine. As a result, there is a growing assessment of this approach being published in the medical literature. The objective of this study was to outline the clinical applications of individualized 3D printing in gynecology through a scoping review.
Data Sources:
Four medical databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus) and grey literature were searched for publications meeting eligibility criteria up to 31 May 2021.
Study Eligibility Criteria:
Publications were included if they were published in English, had a gynecologic context, and involved production of patient specific 3D printed product(s).
Study Appraisal And Synthesis Methods:
Studies were manually screened and assessed for eligibility by two independent reviewers and data were extracted using pre-established criteria using Covidence software.
Results:
Overall, 32 studies (15 abstracts,17 full text articles) were included in the scoping review. Most studies were either case reports (12/32,38%) or case series (15/32,47%). Gynecologic sub-specialties in which the 3D printed models were intended for use included: gynecologic oncology (21/32,66%), benign gynecology (6/32,19%), pediatrics (2/32,6%), urogynecology (2/32,6%) and reproductive endocrinology and infertility (1/32,3%). Twenty studies (63%) printed 5 or less models, 6/32 studies (19%) printed greater than 5 (up to 50 models). Types of 3D models printed included: anatomical models (11/32,34%), medical devices, (2/32,6%) and template/guide/cylindrical applicators for brachytherapy (19/32,59%).
Conclusions:
Our scoping review has outlined novel clinical applications for individualized 3D printed models in gynecology. To date, they have mainly been used for production of patient specific 3D printed brachytherapy guides/applicators in patients with gynecologic cancer. However, individualized 3D printing shows great promise for utility in surgical planning, surgical education, and production of patient specific devices, across gynecologic subspecialties. Evidence supporting the clinical value of individualized 3D printing in gynecology is limited by studies with small sample size and non-standardized reporting, which should be the focus of future studies.
