三维打印与人工耳蜗植入：一项系统综述
Three-dimensional printing and cochlear implantation: a systematic review.
文献信息
| PMID | 42704466 |
|---|---|
| 原文 | 在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗ |
| 发表日期 | 2026 |
| 作者 | Eleonora M C Trecca |
| 作者单位 | Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Unit of Otorhinolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, University of Foggia, Viale Pinto, 1, 71122, Foggia, Italy. eleonoramc.trecca@gmail.com. |
| 期刊 | European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery |
| SCI 分区 | Q1 |
| IF | 2.3 |
| 研究类型 | 综述 Meta · 临床 |
| 所属专科 | 耳科 |
中文摘要
目的： 本系统综述旨在评估三维（3D）打印在人工耳蜗植入（CI）中的应用，重点关注其在手术培训、术前规划、术中辅助和设备创新中的作用。
方法： 对PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和Google Scholar进行了从建库至2025年8月30日的系统检索。关键词包括“Cochlear Implant”或“Cochlear Implantation”与“3D printing”。通过人工交叉引用识别了额外文章。符合条件的研究为探讨3D打印在CI中应用的英文原创研究论文。排除标准包括综述、会议论文以及与CI无关的研究。使用STROBE清单评估报告完整性，同时使用经过验证的领域特异性工具（ROBINS-I、SYRCLE和改编的QUADAS-2领域）独立评估方法学偏倚风险。由于研究异质性显著，进行了叙述性综合。
结果： 在识别出的76篇出版物中，22项研究符合纳入标准，且2021年后明显增加。纳入的文献被分为三个功能领域：教学模型/手术培训（n=13）、临床前研究/设备创新（n=3）以及人体临床/解剖应用（n=6）。所报告的实证准确度范围为16至400微米。平均STROBE评分为14.8±3.1，表明报告质量为中等至高等。然而，严格的方法学评估显示，由于非比较性设计以及研究人员缺乏盲法，人体和尸体系列研究存在高偏倚风险，而使用合成模拟器的研究则主要表现出低偏倚风险。
结论： 本综述强调了3D打印在CI中的变革性潜力，特别是在加强手术培训和改善手术结局方面。作为首个专门聚焦于人工耳蜗植入特异性应用的系统综述，它填补了文献中的关键空白，并突出了未来研究标准化方法学和探索长期临床影响的机会。
英文摘要
PURPOSE: This systematic review aims to evaluate the applications of three-dimensional (3D) printing in cochlear implantation (CI), focusing on its roles in surgical training, pre-operative planning, intraoperative assistance, and device innovation.
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted from inception to August 30, 2025. Keywords included "Cochlear Implant" OR "Cochlear Implantation" AND "3D printing". Additional articles were identified through manual cross-referencing. Eligible studies were original research articles in English that investigated the use of 3D printing in CI. Exclusion criteria included reviews, conference papers, and studies unrelated to CI. Reporting completeness was evaluated using the STROBE checklist, while methodological risk of bias was independently assessed using validated, domain-specific tools (ROBINS-I, SYRCLE, and adapted QUADAS-2 domains). Due to profound study heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed.
RESULTS: Of the 76 publications identified, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria, with a marked increase after 2021. The included literature was divided into three functional areas: teaching models/surgical training (n = 13), preclinical research/device innovation (n = 3) and clinical/anatomical applications in humans (n = 6). The reported empirical accuracies ranged from 16 to 400 microns. The mean STROBE score was 14.8 ± 3.1, indicating moderate to high reporting quality. However, a rigorous methodological assessment revealed a high risk of bias among human and cadaveric series due to non-comparative designs and a lack of blinding on the part of the researchers, whilst studies using synthetic simulators demonstrated a predominantly low risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: This review underscores the transformative potential of 3D printing in CI, particularly in enhancing surgical training and improving procedural outcomes. As the first systematic review focusing exclusively on cochlear-implant-specific applications, it addresses a critical gap in the literature and highlights opportunities for future research to standardize methodologies and explore long-term clinical impacts.