Dr. Kyle VanKoevering faced an extraordinary challenge: a fetus with a potentially airway-obstructing facial mass, and a decision that couldn't wait. Rather than proceed with risky surgery based on imaging alone, he used 3D printing technology to recreate the fetus's head, studying the anatomy in his hands before the delivery room. That single model changed how he approached the case—and it marked a turning point in how surgeons prepare for complex procedures.
VanKoevering's Medical Modeling, Materials and Manufacturing (M4) Lab at Ohio State University has since become a hub for this emerging technology, one of hospitals across the world now embracing 3D-printed anatomical models to reduce surgical risk and improve patient outcomes. The work, published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, reveals how a simple idea—printing what surgeons need to see before they cut—is transforming surgical practice one patient at a time.
The applications span three critical areas. First, surgeons can study individual patient anatomy before surgery, a particularly valuable advantage for complex, delicate structures where precision determines outcomes. Rather than relying solely on CT scans and MRI images, a surgeon can hold a 3D model of their specific patient's anatomy, rotating it, studying it, planning every step. Second, 3D printing enables the development of patient-specific implants and prosthetic devices tailored to each person's unique anatomy, which improves both surgical and postoperative outcomes. Third, medical residents can train on realistic models that mimic the color and texture of real tissue, developing technical skills without risk to human patients—a safer path to expertise.
Yet obstacles remain steep. Implantable 3D-printed models require rigorous testing and FDA clearance to manufacture, a capability the M4 Lab does not yet have. Other medical facilities struggle with the high startup costs of launching a 3D printing lab, along with the additional training and multidisciplinary coordination required to make the technology work. For now, these barriers have limited how widely the technology is adopted, even as its promise grows clearer.
ICU nurse and health writer Jenna Congdon, who documented this emerging field, notes a crucial counterpoint: the benefits of personalized surgical care may extend to longer-term cost savings that could ultimately offset the upfront investment. Despite the hurdles—regulatory, financial, logistical—3D modeling and printing has what Congdon describes as "undeniable promise" to support a new era of personalized surgical care.
The future may belong to hospitals that invest in this technology now. As more surgeons experience the confidence that comes from studying a patient's anatomy before making their first incision, and as more residents train on models that mirror reality, the case for 3D printing in medicine only strengthens. The question is no longer whether this technology works—VanKoevering and countless others have answered that. The question now is how quickly it spreads, and whether regulatory pathways and funding models can evolve to make personalized medicine accessible to more patients, in more hospitals, around the world.