Utility and Costs During the Initial Year of 3D Printing in an Academic Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of utility and cost data regarding the launch of 3D printing in a hospital. The objective of this project is to benchmark utility and costs for radiology-based in-hospital 3D printing of anatomic models in a single, adult academic hospital. METHODS: All consecutive patients for whom 3D printed anatomic models were requested during the first year of operation were included. All 3D printing activities were documented by the 3D printing faculty and referring specialists. For patients who underwent a procedure informed by 3D printing, clinical utility was determined by the specialist who requested the model. A new metric for utility termed Anatomic Model Utility Points with range 0 (lowest utility) to 500 (highest utility) was derived from the specialist answers to Likert statements. Costs expressed in United States dollars were tallied from all 3D printing human resources and overhead. Total costs, focused costs, and outsourced costs were estimated. The specialist estimated the procedure room time saved from the 3D printed model. The time saved was converted to dollars using hospital procedure room costs. RESULTS: The 78 patients referred for 3D printed anatomic models included 11 clinical indications. For the 68 patients who had a procedure, the anatomic model utility points had an overall mean (SD) of 312 (57) per patient (range, 200-450 points). The total operation cost was $213,450. The total cost, focused costs, and outsourced costs were $2,737, $2,180, and $2,467 per model, respectively. Estimated procedure time saved had a mean (SD) of 29.9 (12.1) min (range, 0-60 min). The hospital procedure room cost per minute was $97 (theoretical $2,900 per patient saved with model). DISCUSSION: Utility and cost benchmarks for anatomic models 3D printed in a hospital can inform health care budgets. Realizing pecuniary benefit from the procedure time saved requires future research.

Tuberculosis presenting with seizure and abdominal pain in a young female: A case report.

In this case report, a 23-year-old female presented to the Emergency Department with complaints of abdominal pain, weight loss, progressive headaches, and an episode of seizure-like activity. Computerized tomography abdomen/pelvis revealed multilobulated ovarian masses and scattered peritoneal thickening. A brain Magnetic resonance imaging was ordered and demonstrated a peripherally enhancing intracranial mass. The brain lesion was resected and pathology revealed necrotizing granulomatous inflammation. Cultures were positive for acid fast bacilli. The patient was diagnosed with tuberculosis and treated with multidrug therapy. Upon further questioning, the patient had recently traveled to a tuberculosis endemic region. This case highlights the importance of an in-depth history and physical exam as a means to a more complete differential diagnosis considering the age of the patient and the findings on imaging.

The use of pre-existing CT imaging in screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is recommended for male smokers >65 years of age, but screening rates remain low. If computed tomography (CT) performed for other indications could be considered adequate for screening, one-third of ultrasounds would potentially be unnecessary, and overall screening rates would be substantially higher. The objective of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of CT imaging of the abdomen for the detection of AAA when performed for other clinical indications. We performed a retrospective study of patients eligible for AAA screening who had undergone an abdominal ultrasound as well as an abdominal CT scan for other indications within 3 years prior to that study. The primary outcome was identification of an AAA, recorded in the findings narrative or impression of the CT scan report. Of 142 patients with both a CT scan and an AAA on ultrasound, 127 (89.4%) were noted to have an AAA in the report of a CT scan performed within the 3 years prior to the ultrasound. An additional 10 films demonstrated an AAA that was not mentioned in the report. The sensitivity of pre-existing CT scans for AAA screening was 97.2% (137/141) [95% CI: 93.4-99.0%]; 123 (86.6%) of these positive findings were reported in the findings narrative and 120 (84.5%) were reported in the radiologist's final impression. The sensitivity for AAA identification in the report of a pre-existing CT scan of the abdomen performed for alternate indications appears high enough to use as a screening test. When radiologists note an AAA, they should be sure to include it in the final impression.