Next Article in Journal
The Artificial Intelligence-Driven Intelligent Laboratory for Organic Chemistry Synthesis
Next Article in Special Issue
Additively Manufactured Polymers for Electronic Components
Previous Article in Journal
Design and Analysis of a Hybrid MPPT Method for PV Systems Under Partial Shading Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Review of Additive Manufacturing Techniques in Artificial Reef Construction: Materials, Processes, and Ecological Impact
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/app15137384
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Three-Dimensional-Printed Gastrointestinal Tract Models for Surgical Planning and Medical Education: A Systematic Review

by
Jing Lei
1,
Lisa B. G. Tee
1,
Krish Ragunath
1,2 and
Zhonghua Sun
1,3,*
1
Curtin Medical School, Curtin University, Perth 6845, Australia
2
Royal Perth Hospital, Perth 6000, Australia
3
Curtin Medical Research Institute (Curtin MRI), Curtin University, Perth 6845, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(13), 7384; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137384
Submission received: 1 May 2025 / Revised: 31 May 2025 / Accepted: 28 June 2025 / Published: 30 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Review Papers in Additive Manufacturing Technologies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D)-printed models have been extensively applied in operative planning and medical education to directly visualize anatomical structures and gain tactile experiences. Although studies are available on the use of 3D printing technology in the gastrointestinal tract, there is a lack of detailed analyses of its current applications, particularly in the context of 3D-printed gastrointestinal tract models for surgical planning and education. Therefore, this systematic review aims to analyze the current application of 3D printing technology in gastrointestinal tract diseases, focusing on the techniques, materials, anatomical structures, and the impact of its use. A systematic search was conducted across the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Embase databases adhering to the PRISMA 2020 protocols. A total of 25 articles were identified as eligible for review. The findings revealed that 3D-printed gastrointestinal tract models can enhance technical skills, knowledge, and confidence in performing gastrointestinal surgery or other procedures in a risk-free environment. However, most studies (76%) were limited by their small sample size, with only 1–3 models printed, and lacked comparative analysis. The influence of this procedure on actual patients was not followed up; hence, the impact of this simulator on clinical practice outcomes remains unknown. Most of the 3D-printed models were designed for a single procedure, limiting their widespread application. Future research should focus on developing more realistic printed materials to accurately simulate real organs, including large sample sizes; comparing 3D-printed models with other simulators or other visualization modalities such as virtual reality and mixed reality; and investigating their impact on actual gastrointestinal procedures.

1. Introduction

Gastrointestinal procedures are common and effective diagnostic and therapeutic tools for gastrointestinal diseases. With the increased clinical application of gastrointestinal procedures, an increasing number of medical residents need related training. Traditional endoscopic training is supervised and patient-based, but this method is not effective, as it usually involves only one operator at a time. The lack of experience among endoscopy trainees could increase the risk of patient discomfort and dissatisfaction, thus extending the operation time [1,2].
Medical simulation can improve trainees’ professional skills in a risk-free environment, especially for surgical procedures. For the gastrointestinal tract, simulation-based training is becoming an inherent part of medical training. The existing simulators are physical/mechanical, animal models (both in vivo and ex vivo), or computerized.
However, these simulations have their advantages and disadvantages. Conventional mechanical simulators provide natural tactile feedback but lack realism and complexity in simulating the human structure [3,4,5]. Animal models can provide actual haptic feedback, allowing trainees to experience authentic clinical interventions [3], but are expensive and difficult to collect and maintain. Computerized simulators can provide multiple endoscopic procedures, anatomies, and interventions for training but lack realistic force feedback and are not cost-effective [3].
Due to rapid technological advancements, three-dimensional (3D)-printed models have been extensively employed in surgical planning and medical education. These 3D-printed models allow direct visualization of anatomical structures and provide a tactile experience for practice [6,7]. In surgical planning, 3D patient-specific printing technology can help surgeons to understand complex anatomical relationships and determine which structures can be safely altered or removed. Compared with conventional 2-dimensional or 3D imaging, a 3D-printed model can provide more complex information for surgical planning in a shorter timeframe [8].
Three-dimensional-printed models have been utilized for preoperative assessment and surgical training in various conditions, including coronary artery disease, congenital heart disease, aortic disease, renal disease, and hepatobiliary disease [9,10,11,12]. Studies have demonstrated the clinical value of using patient-specific 3D-printed models in guiding and simulating surgical planning, particularly for complex or challenging conditions, with advantages such as reducing the operating time, perioperative risks, and procedure-associated complications [9,10,11,12].
Recently, 3D-printed models have been utilized for gastrointestinal tract applications such as esophageal stents and presurgical evaluation for gastrointestinal cancer [13,14]. In these studies, the 3D-printed patient-specific models are durable, inexpensive, easy to produce, and achieve anatomical realism. Therefore, 3D-printed gastrointestinal models can be valuable, with the potential to serve as training models for presurgical planning and education. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, Robb et al. analyzed 25 studies regarding the clinical benefits of using 3D-printed models on the clinical outcomes of metabolic surgery [14], emphasizing the accuracy of 3D-printed models for volumetric assessments of postoperative anatomy. Furthermore, 3D-printed models play an important role in patient and clinician education, thus contributing to improving postoperative outcomes.
However, over the last decade, studies of 3D-printed gastrointestinal models have used only small sample studies or presented case reports (Figure 1). A review by Papazarkadas et al. highlighted the value of 3D printing in colorectal surgery [15]. However, the 3D-printed models in this review were only vascular, pelvic, and anorectal fistulas. There is a lack of systematic research on 3D-printed gastrointestinal tract models for surgical planning and medical training.
This systematic review summarizes the current role of 3D-printed models in the gastrointestinal tract and explores their applications for future practice and research. The rationale for conducting this review is to analyze the current literature regarding the usefulness of 3D printing technology in gastrointestinal diseases. As most studies focus on the applications of 3D printing in maxillofacial, cardiovascular, or liver diseases, this review is expected to address the research gap by providing an update on the current status of these models in the gastrointestinal arena, with limitations and future recommendations highlighted, thus serving as a useful resource to guide further studies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

A literature search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines [16]. The search databases for this review were PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Embase (Table 1).

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The articles were managed using the EndNote (v. 20.6) software. Endnote’s automated processes removed duplicate records.
Reports were included if they were original, full-text, peer-reviewed articles written in English and published over the last 10 years exploring the use of 3D-printed models of the gastrointestinal tract. Articles discussing 3D-printed model production methods/materials were included. The limited original research present in the literature ultimately necessitated the inclusion of case reports.
Articles were excluded if they exclusively discussed using 3D-printed models for medication or animal tests, including articles about 3D-printed gastrointestinal vascular models. Furthermore, 3D-printed models of the digestive glands, such as the liver, gallbladder, and pancreas, were also excluded. Gray literature, including conference papers, letters to the editor, books, practice guidelines, and preprints, was also excluded.

2.3. Article Quality Assessment

The quality of each study was assessed using the “Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs” (QATSDD) developed by Sirriyeh et al. [17].

2.4. Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were collected on the purpose and applications of 3D-printed gastrointestinal tract models, including the organs printed, sample size, imaging modalities, and software used for 3D printing as well as the 3D printers, materials used, relevant findings, research limitations, and the country in which the studies were conducted. The data extraction was performed by one observer (J.L.) and double-checked by another (Z.S.).

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

Nine duplicates were removed after searching three databases. The remaining articles were screened based on title and abstract, and 288 unrelated articles were removed. Following full-text screening, articles were excluded if they did not involve human gastrointestinal tract models. In total, 25 articles were included in this review [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42] (Figure 2). Eighteen eligible articles were identified via full-text screening [18,19,23,24,25,26,27,30,31,32,33,34,35,38,39,40,41,42]. An additional seven articles were selected from the reference lists [20,21,22,28,29,36,37].

3.2. Study Characteristics and Findings

Table 2 lists the design characteristics and key findings of these 25 studies. Of these, 16 were experimental studies [18,19,21,22,23,24,25,27,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39], 4 were case reports [20,26,28,41], and 5 were descriptive surveys [29,30,31,40,42]. Thirteen studies equally represented the USA [18,20,23,38,41], Canada [25,30,34,35], Germany [19,37], Italy [28], and the UK [36]. Ten studies were from Korea [21,24,27,29,32,40] and Japan [22,26,31,33]. The remaining two were from Slovakia [39] and China [42].

3.3. Three-Dimensional Printing Details

Table 3 presents the details of 3D printing in all 25 studies, including the imaging modalities, the software used for image processing, the organs printed, the 3D printers employed, the 3D printer materials, the printing time, and the printing cost.

3.3.1. Three-Dimensional Printing Processing and Materials

Of the 25 studies, 16 (67%) used CT imaging for 3D printing [19,20,21,22,24,26,28,29,30,31,32,33,36,39,40,41], 1 used both CT and magnetic resonance imaging [42], and the remaining 8 did not mention the data resource used for printing. Eight studies mentioned the printing method. Six used fused-deposition modeling (FDM) [24,30,33,39,40,42], and two used stereolithography printing modeling [28,32].
The 3D printing time varied from 6 to 48 h. The highest printing cost was USD 1175 [18], and the lowest was USD 10 [33].
Silicone was the most commonly used material, accounting for 46% of the studies [18,19,22,24,25,27,29,32,34,35,36,39,40]. The second most commonly used material was polylactic acid (PLA) [23,25,33,35,39]. Other printing materials included resin, rubber-like material, PlatSil Gel-10, and plastic (Figure 3). In Yu et al.’s study, PVA/polyacrylamide (PAM) hydrogels were utilized as a novel material for gastrointestinal 3D printing. Six studies concertedly used two materials to print models [25,27,32,35,39,41].
Five studies reported material hardness [24,29,32,35,36]. Two silicone materials with a Shore hardness of A10 were used [24,29]. One study compared three rubber-like materials with different Shore hardnesses (Shore A 50, 60, 70) [32]. The remaining two studies used silicone materials with hardnesses of 00-10, 00-25, 00-30, and 40 [35,36].

3.3.2. Printed Gastrointestinal Organs

According to the 25 studies, 3D-printed gastrointestinal organs included the entire digestive tract. In 10 articles (40%), the stomach was the most frequently modeled organ [18,21,24,25,27,28,29,32,38,42] (Figure 4). Three-dimensional-printed rectum models were reported in only three studies [19,22,41]. The thickness of the gastric wall ranged from 2 mm to 4 mm [21,24,32]. One study mentioned the wall thickness of the colon was 2–3 mm [40]. Two studies reported the dimensions of the gastrointestinal tract models (the gastric outlet model was 40 mm in length and 18 mm in diameter, and the small bowel model was 30 cm in length) [21,35].

3.4. Purposes of 3D-Printed Gastrointestinal Models

Nineteen studies focused on specific training and preoperative assessment for gastrointestinal tract surgery or other procedures [20,21,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,31,33,34,35,36,38,39,40,41], including two for pediatric surgical planning [25,36]. Three studies developed abdominal, gastric, and laparoscopic phantoms [19,30,32]. Two studies were designed to create training models for colonoscopy [22,37]. One study utilized a novel material for gastrointestinal 3D printing [42].

3.5. Evaluation Methods and Outcomes

Fourteen studies used questionnaires for evaluation [18,19,22,23,24,25,27,34,35,36,37,38,39,42], including the use of Likert scales in nine studies. The data were presented as the mean ± SD. The Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis test, and t-test were used to compare group differences [22,24,25,32,37,39].
Eleven studies showed that the 3D-printed models were considered highly realistic in terms of anatomical representation, including visual and tactile feedback, and were useful for training [18,19,23,24,25,27,34,35,36,37,39]. Six studies regarded the 3D-printed models as cost-effective, reusable, and durable tools [18,23,24,29,35,36]. Three studies showed that the time to complete the training procedure with the 3D models decreased significantly with repeated trials [24,25,27]. Two studies found that the participants’ knowledge and confidence showed significant improvements after the use of 3D-printed simulator training [18,38]. Six studies showed that 3D models helped surgeons understand the anatomical relationships of complex cases [20,26,28,31,33,40].

3.6. Quality of the Studies

The articles included in this review were heterogeneous and comprised of four case reports [20,26,28,41]. All 25 studies were evaluated using “QATSDD”, developed by Sirriyeh et al. [17]. The quality of the trials varied, ranging from 21.4% to 76.2%. Six studies were rated <50%, four of which were case reports. The results are presented in Table 4.

4. Discussion

Analysis of the 25 studies included in this review revealed several key findings. First, 3D-printed gastrointestinal tract models can enhance technical skills, knowledge, and confidence in performing gastrointestinal surgery and other procedures in a risk-free environment. Second, the 3D patient-specific printing method enables the creation of realistic anatomy, haptics, modularity, and reproducibility for presurgical planning and training. Nonetheless, most of the studies reviewed had small sample sizes and lacked comparison analysis. The influence of the models on actual patient procedures was not followed up. Furthermore, most of the 3D-printed models in these studies were designed for a single procedure, which limits their widespread application.

4.1. Three-Dimensional Printing Methods and Materials for the Gastrointestinal Tract

According to current studies, FDM is the primary method for 3D printing the gastrointestinal tract. FDM is a popular 3D printing technology with rapid production, cost-efficiency, accessibility, broad material adaptability, and the ability to produce complex components [43,44]. Stereolithography printing has also been utilized to produce 3D models of the gastrointestinal tract, but its cost is higher than that of FDM. Furthermore, research on the technical differences between various 3D printing technologies for the gastrointestinal tract is limited, and data on printing times are scarce. Only four studies have reported printing times, ranging from 6 to 48 h [28,33,39,42]. This lack of detail affects the overall assessment of current gastrointestinal 3D printing technology.
Silicone is the most commonly used printing material for gastrointestinal models that can provide tactile feedback to users. Several types of silicone suitable for 3D printing the gastrointestinal tract have been investigated. Kenngott et al. compared three types of silicone for 3D printing: Ecoflex 0010, Ecoflex 0030, and Dragon Skin FX-Pro [19]. In that study, 10 silicone rectum models were produced using mixtures of different silicone types. The rectum model created with three parts Ecoflex 0030 and one part Slacker showed the best results in terms of haptic realism. In Kwon’s research, the tensile strengths and elongations, number of silicone coatings (0, 2, and 8 times), and specimen hardness (50, 60, and 70 Shore A) of three materials (Agilus, Elastic, and Flexa) were evaluated (Figure 5) [32]. Habti’s research compared six silicone materials with different Shore hardnesses to develop 3D-printed models of the small bowel [35].
PLA is often combined with silicone. Studies have documented the use of PLA to print molds and then silicone to prepare the final intestinal model [25,35,39]. Resin-printed models have been used in some case reports for presurgical planning [28,41].
Apart from these materials, one study explored the application of PVA/PAM hydrogels in 3D-printed models. PVA/PAM hydrogels are an elastic and flexible material that closely simulates the physical characteristics of soft tissues such as the brain, liver, and gastrointestinal tract [42]. This research has provided potential innovative material for future 3D gastrointestinal printing.
There is a dearth of studies comparing various printing materials, so examining more realistic printed materials is a potential research area for future studies.

4.2. Three-Dimensional-Printing Gastrointestinal Organs and Their Applications

The most common 3D-printed gastrointestinal organs are the stomach, colon, and esophagus. Most studies have focused on specific training and preoperative evaluation for surgeries and other procedures related to the gastrointestinal tract. The current 3D gastrointestinal models are patient-specific ones derived from real patient imaging data. Only six studies mentioned the dimensions of these models [21,24,32,35,39,40]. Figure 6 shows the process of generating 3D-printed models from image post-processing and the segmentation of original CT images to a 3D model’s development.
The endoscopic procedure is the primary treatment for gastric diseases. Therefore, 3D-printed stomach models have predominantly been applied for endoscopic procedure training including endoscopic ampullectomy, biopsy, endoscopic hemostasis, intragastric balloon, and stent placement [18,21,24,27,29,38].
Unlike the gastric model, the 3D-printed colon model focuses on preoperative planning in addition to endoscopic training, which is associated with a high incidence of colon tumors. Three-dimensional-printed models have provided patient-specific anatomy and more accurate identification of tumor locations for surgeons under challenging conditions [26,31]. Moreover, studies have analyzed the colon morphology and designed models based on three common morphological patterns to improve their realism [22].
The use of 3D esophageal models has increased in recent years. Dickinson et al. reported the first application of 3D-printed esophageal models to complex esophageal cases [20], and Neville et al. and Zahradniková et al. explored the use of 3D esophageal models in pediatric surgery. The researchers have also developed 3D-printed esophageal models for esophageal atresia with tracheoesophageal fistula repair [36,39]. Most participants opined that the 3D model was a suitable training tool. The 3D-printed model can potentially be used as a training tool by pediatric surgeons for esophageal procedures.

4.3. Evaluation and Outcomes of 3D-Printed Gastrointestinal Models

Questionnaire surveys are a common tool for assessing 3D-printed models, with Likert scales being the most common format. These studies showed that 3D-printed models can provide a better appreciation of anatomic relationships with more realistic tactile feedback and visualization and can augment the participants’ confidence and skills in gastrointestinal tract surgery and other procedures. In the current studies, with the cost of 3D printing decreasing, 3D-printed gastrointestinal models are regarded as cost-effective, reusable, and durable tools [18,23,24,29,35,36]. Noda et al. and Steger et al. compared 3D-printed models with simulators, finding the 3D-printed model to be more realistic in anatomical structure, visual response, and haptic response than the previous simulator model (Figure 7) [22,37].
Current research has also noted the disadvantages of 3D-printed gastrointestinal models. Gastrointestinal tract peristalsis and movement cannot be reproduced with 3D-printed models, and the elasticity cannot reach the same level as that of a real organ. This is an area that should be considered in future studies.

4.4. Limitations and Future Recommendations

Some limitations need to be acknowledged in this review. Firstly, the studies included have small sample sizes and lack longitudinal data. The results of these studies are also based on the participants’ subjective evaluations, and there could be bias in evaluating the simulator using questionnaires [24]. Secondly, there is a lack of comparison with conventional clinical training and other models. Only two studies compared the 3D-printed model with previous simulators [22,37]. Thirdly, these studies lack follow-ups of the participants’ clinical practice after their model experience. The impact of 3D-printed simulators on patient outcomes remains unknown [37]. Finally, little effort has been made to compare and evaluate the mechanical properties of different materials. Some studies did not provide details of their 3D printing, making it difficult to compare the methods. Another limitation of current studies is a lack of comparisons of 3D-printed models with virtual reality (VR) or mixed reality (MR) visualization tools. Recent studies have shown that VR and MR are the best modalities in presurgical planning, demonstrating a spatial relationship between cardiac structures and enhancing depth perception in congenital heart disease. Furthermore, 3D-printed models have been found to be the preferred modality in facilitating communication with patients [9,45,46]. Therefore, it is worth comparing 3D-printed gastrointestinal tract models with VR and MR.
Future research will focus on performance improvements, focusing on less-explored areas, in addition to currently reported 3D-printed models in education, clinical training, and procedure simulation. The optimization of CT scanning protocols deserves investigation given the widespread use of virtual colonoscopy in screening colonic polys. A recent study showed the feasibility of using 3D-printed personalized chest models to stimulate lung nodules to determine low-dose or ultra-low-dose CT protocols in lung cancer screening [47]. The use of 3D printing technology for drug delivery has been widely reported in the literature, and with respect to gastrointestinal tract diseases, great potential lies in combining 3D printing with nanotechnology to achieve dose personalization for colon-specific diseases with improved treatment outcomes [48]. Three-dimensional bioprinting shows promise in revolutionizing medicine by printing functional tissues, organs, or even living cells. However, very limited research is available on the gastrointestinal tract, as most of the current reports are mainly related to cardiovascular or liver disease [49,50,51,52]. Figure 8 shows the mechanisms for performance improvement strategies utilizing 3D printing technology in gastrointestinal diseases.

5. Conclusions

This review analyzed the development and application of 3D-printed gastrointestinal tract models in the context of presurgical planning and medical education over the last decade. We established that 3D-printed gastrointestinal models provide realistic anatomical structures and enhance trainee skills and confidence using real patient images. However, elasticity must be improved to simulate real organs. Future research should focus on comparing these models with other simulators as well as with 3D visualization tools, including VR and MR, and examining their impacts on actual gastrointestinal procedures and clinical outcome improvements, such as reducing surgical procedure time, risks, and complications associated with these procedures. Furthermore, additional studies must include larger sample sizes with longitudinal follow-up data. With improvements in 3D printing technology and advancements in printing materials, 3D-printed gastrointestinal models are expected to soon become more realistic, replicating normal gastrointestinal organs in terms of their dimensions and functions, and thus playing an increasing role in delivering personalized medicine.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L. and Z.S.; methodology, J.L.; formal analysis, J.L.; data curation, J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.; writing—review and editing, J.L., L.B.G.T., K.R. and Z.S.; visualization, J.L. and Z.S.; supervision, Z.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
3DThree-dimensional
BTBalloon tamponade tube
CTComputed tomography
ERCPEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
GDGastroduodenal
HSBAHand-sewn bowel anastomosis
MRMagnetic resonance
PVAPolyvinyl alcohol
PAMPolyacrylamide
NANot applicable
QATSDDQuality assessment tool for studies with diverse designs
TEPTransesophageal prosthesis

References

  1. Bini, E.J.; Firoozi, B.; Choung, R.J.; Ali, E.M.; Osman, M.; Weinshel, E.H. Systematic evaluation of complications related to endoscopy in a training setting: A prospective 30-day outcomes study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2003, 57, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sedlack, R.E. The state of simulation in endoscopy education: Continuing to advance toward our goals. Gastroenterology 2013, 144, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Finocchiaro, M.; Cortegoso Valdivia, P.; Hernansanz, A.; Marino, N.; Amram, D.; Casals, A.; Menciassi, A.; Marlicz, W.; Ciuti, G.; Koulaouzidis, A. Training Simulators for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Current and Future Perspectives. Cancers 2021, 13, 1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Buscaglia, J.M.; Fakhoury, J.; Loyal, J.; Denoya, P.I.; Kazi, E.; Stein, S.A.; Scriven, R.; Bergamaschi, R. Simulated colonoscopy training using a low-cost physical model improves responsiveness of surgery interns. Colorectal. Dis. 2015, 17, 530–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Phillips, M.S.; Marks, J.M. Overview of methods for flexible endoscopic training and description of a simple explant model. Asian J. Endosc. Surg. 2011, 4, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Fechner, C.; del Castillo, T.R.; Roos, J.E.; Zech, C.J.; Takes, M.; Benitez, R.L. 3D printed percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and drainage (PTCD) simulator for interventional radiology. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2023, 46, 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Zerwic, L.; Mohan, A.; Riley, E.; Byeman, C.; Ashwath, R. The impact of 3D printed vs. 3D virtual congenital heart models on patient and family knowledge. Front. Pediatr. 2025, 13, 1525549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Marconi, S.; Pugliese, L.; Botti, M.; Peri, A.; Cavazzi, E.; Latteri, S.; Auricchio, F.; Pietrabissa, A. Value of 3D printing for the comprehension of surgical anatomy. Surg. Endosc. 2017, 31, 4102–4110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lee, S.Y.; Squelch, A.; Sun, Z. Investigation of the clinical value of four visualization modalities for congenital heart disease. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2024, 11, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Daring, D.L.; Sun, Z. Investigation of the clinical value of three-dimensional printed personalised vascular models for the education and training of clinicians when performing interventional endovascular procedures. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 5695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Belenchon, I.R.; Ruiz, C.B.C.; Ciriza, G.G.; Dos Santos, V.G.; Revilla, F.J.B.; Lopez, R.A.M. Impact of 3D-printed models for surgical planning in renal cell carcinoma with venous tumor thrombus: A randomized multiceneter clinical trial. J. Urol. 2025, 213, 568–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ballard, D.H.; Wake, N.; Witowski, J.; Rybicki, F.J.; Sheikh, A. Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 3D Printing Special Interest Group (SIG) clinical situations for which 3D printing is considered an appropriate representation or extension of data contained in a medical imaging examination: Abdominal, hepatobiliary, and gastrointestinal conditions. 3D Print. Med. 2020, 6, 13. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  13. Habermann, A.; Otoya, D.; Yu, K.R.; Burkhardt, B.; Amendola, M.; Rivers, J. Utilizing pre-operative 3D printed model to inform pancreaticogastric fistula treatment: A case report. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2025, 130, 111323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Robb, H.D.; Arif, A.; Narendranath, R.M.; Das, B.; Alayaqout, K.; Lynn, W.; Aal, Y.A.; Ashrafian, H.; Fehervari, M. How is 3D modeling in metabolic surgery utilized and what is its clinical benefit: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Surg. 2025, 111, 3159–3168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Papazarkadas, X.; Spartalis, E.; Patsouras, D.; Ioannidis, A.; Schizas, D.; Georgiou, K.; Dimitroulis, D.; Nikiteas, N. The Role of 3D Printing in Colorectal Surgery: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives. In Vivo 2019, 33, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sirriyeh, R.; Lawton, R.; Gardner, P.; Armitage, G. Reviewing studies with diverse designs: The development and evaluation of a new tool. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2012, 18, 746–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Holt, B.A.; Hearn, G.; Hawes, R.; Tharian, B.; Varadarajulu, S. Development and evaluation of a 3D printed endoscopic ampullectomy training model (with video). Gastrointest. Endosc. 2015, 81, 1470–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kenngott, H.G.; Wünscher, J.J.; Wagner, M.; Preukschas, A.; Wekerle, A.L.; Neher, P.; Suwelack, S.; Speidel, S.; Nickel, F.; Oladokun, D.; et al. OpenHELP (Heidelberg laparoscopy phantom): Development of an open-source surgical evaluation and training tool. Surg. Endosc. 2015, 29, 3338–3347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dickinson, K.J.M.B.S.; Matsumoto, J.M.D.; Cassivi, S.D.M.D.M.S.; Reinersman, J.M.M.D.; Fletcher, J.G.M.D.; Morris, J.M.D.; Wong Kee Song, L.M.M.D.; Blackmon, S.H.M.D.M.P.H. Individualizing Management of Complex Esophageal Pathology Using Three-Dimensional Printed Models. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2015, 100, 692–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kim, G.B.; Park, J.-H.; Song, H.-Y.; Kim, N.; Song, H.K.; Kim, M.T.; Kim, K.Y.; Tsauo, J.; Jun, E.J.; Kim, D.H.; et al. 3D-printed phantom study for investigating stent abutment during gastroduodenal stent placement for gastric outlet obstruction. 3D Print. Med. 2017, 3, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Noda, K.; Kitada, T.; Suzuki, Y.; Colvin, H.S.; Hata, T.; Mizushima, T. A novel physical colonoscopy simulator based on analysis of data from computed tomography colonography. Surg. Today 2017, 47, 1153–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Barber, S.R.; Kozin, E.D.; Naunheim, M.R.; Sethi, R.; Remenschneider, A.K.; Deschler, D.G. 3D-printed tracheoesophageal puncture and prosthesis placement simulator. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2018, 39, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lee, S.; Ahn, J.Y.; Han, M.; Lee, G.H.; Na, H.K.; Jung, K.W.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, D.H.; Choi, K.D.; Song, H.J.; et al. Efficacy of a Three-Dimensional-Printed Training Simulator for Endoscopic Biopsy in the Stomach. Gut. Liver 2018, 12, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Williams, A.; McWilliam, M.; Ahlin, J.; Davidson, J.; Quantz, M.A.; Bütter, A. A simulated training model for laparoscopic pyloromyotomy: Is 3D printing the way of the future? J. Pediatr. Surg. 2018, 53, 937–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hojo, D.; Nishikawa, T.; Takayama, T.; Hiyoshi, M.; Emoto, S.; Nozawa, H.; Kawai, K.; Hata, K.; Tanaka, T.; Shuno, Y.; et al. 3D printed model-based simulation of laparoscopic surgery for descending colon cancer with a concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm. Tech. Coloproctol. 2019, 23, 793–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lee, D.S.; Ahn, J.Y.; Lee, G.H. A Newly Designed 3-Dimensional Printer-Based Gastric Hemostasis Simulator with Two Modules for Endoscopic Trainees (with Video). Gut. Liver 2019, 13, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Marano, L.; Ricci, A.; Savelli, V.; Verre, L.; Di Renzo, L.; Biccari, E.; Costantini, G.; Marrelli, D.; Roviello, F. From digital world to real life: A robotic approach to the esophagogastric junction with a 3D printed model. BMC Surg. 2019, 19, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kwon, C.-I.; Shin, Y.; Hong, J.; Im, M.; Kim, G.B.; Koh, D.H.; Song, T.J.; Park, W.S.; Hyun, J.J.; Jeong, S. Production of ERCP training model using a 3D printing technique (with video). BMC Gastroenterol. 2020, 20, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Anwari, V.; Lai, A.; Ursani, A.; Rego, K.; Karasfi, B.; Sajja, S.; Paul, N. 3D printed CT-based abdominal structure mannequin for enabling research. 3D Print. Med. 2020, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hojo, D.; Emoto, S.; Kawai, K.; Nozawa, H.; Hata, K.; Tanaka, T.; Ishihara, S. Potential Usefulness of Three-dimensional Navigation Tools for the Resection of Intra-abdominal Recurrence of Colorectal Cancer. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2020, 24, 1682–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Kwon, J.; Choi, J.; Lee, S.; Kim, M.; Park, Y.K.; Park, D.H.; Kim, N. Modelling and manufacturing of 3D-printed, patient-specific, and anthropomorphic gastric phantoms: A pilot study. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 18976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hojo, D.; Kawai, K.; Murono, K.; Nozawa, H.; Hata, K.; Tanaka, T.; Nishikawa, T.; Shuno, Y.; Kaneko, M.; Sasaki, K.; et al. Establishment of deformable three-dimensional printed models for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy in transverse colon cancer. ANZ J. Surg. 2021, 91, E493–E499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Oxford, K.; Walsh, G.; Bungay, J.; Quigley, S.; Dubrowski, A. Development, manufacture and initial assessment of validity of a 3-dimensional-printed bowel anastomosis simulation training model. Can. J. Surg. 2021, 64, E484–E490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Habti, M.; Bénard, F.; Arutiunian, A.; Bérubé, S.; Cadoret, D.; Meloche-Dumas, L.; Torres, A.; Kapralos, B.; Mercier, F.; Dubrowski, A.; et al. Development and Learner-Based Assessment of a Novel, Customized, 3D Printed Small Bowel Simulator for Hand-Sewn Anastomosis Training. Cureus 2021, 13, e20536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Neville, J.J.; Chacon, C.S.; Haghighi-Osgouei, R.; Houghton, N.; Bello, F.; Clarke, S.A. Development and validation of a novel 3D-printed simulation model for open oesophageal atresia and tracheo-oesophageal fistula repair. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2022, 38, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Steger, J.; Kwade, C.; Berlet, M.; Krumpholz, R.; Ficht, S.; Wilhelm, D.; Mela, P. The colonoscopic vacuum model–simulating biomechanical restrictions to provide a realistic colonoscopy training environment. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 2023, 18, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mowry, C.; Kohli, R.; Bhat, C.; Truesdale, A.; Menard-Katcher, P.; Scallon, A.; Kriss, M. Gastroesophageal Balloon Tamponade Simulation Training with 3D Printed Model Improves Knowledge, Skill, and Confidence. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2023, 68, 1187–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zahradniková, P.; Babala, J.; Pechanová, R.; Smrek, M.; Vitovič, P.; Laurovičová, M.; Bernát, T.; Nedomová, B. Inanimate 3D printed model for thoracoscopic repair of esophageal atresia with tracheoesophageal fistula. Front. Pediatr. 2023, 11, 1286946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gu, H.; Lee, S.; Kim, S.; Jang, H.-L.; Choi, D.-W.; Kim, K.S.; Shin, Y.R.; Cheung, D.Y.; Lee, B.I.; Kim, J.I.; et al. Development of colonic stent simulator using three-dimensional printing technique: A simulator development study in Korea. Clin. Endosc. 2024, 57, 790–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Keller-Biehl, L.; Otoya, D.; Khader, A.; Timmerman, W.; Fernandez, L.; Amendola, M. Just the gastrointestinal stromal tumor: A case report of medical modeling of a rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor. SAGE Open Med. Case Rep. 2024, 12, 2050313X231211124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Yu, S.; Xu, X.; Ma, L.; Zhao, F.; Mao, J.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Z. Versatile and Tunable Performance of PVA/PAM Tridimensional Hydrogel Models for Tissues and Organs: Augmenting Realism in Advanced Surgical Training. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2024, 7, 6261–6275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Masood, S.H.; Song, W.Q. Development of new metal/polymer materials for rapid tooling using fused deposition modelling. Mater. Des. 2004, 25, 587–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Acierno, D.; Patti, A. Fused deposition modelling (FDM) of thermoplastic-based filaments: Process and rheological Properties—An overview. Materials 2023, 16, 7664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lau, I.; Gupta, A.; Sun, Z. Clinical value of virtual reality versus 3D printing in congenital heart disease. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lau, I.; Gupta, A.; Ihdayhid, A.; Sun, Z. Clinical application of mixed reality and 3D printing in congenital heart disease. Biomolecules 2022, 12, 1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Silberstein, J.; Tran, S.; Wong, Y.H.; Yeong, C.H.; Sun, Z. Development of a 3D-printed chest phantom with simulation of lung nodules for studying ultra-low-dose computed tomography protocols. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Almeida, A.; Linares, V.; Mora-Castano, G.; Casas, M.; Caraballo, I.; Sarmento, B. 3D printed systems for colon-specific delivery of camptothecin-loaded chitosan micelles. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2021, 167, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Qin, Y.; Fan, L.; Zhan, L.; Sun, J.; Liu, J.; Gao, G.; Ma, S.; Pu, X.; Zhao, L.; Zheng, Y.; et al. Biofabrication: Bioprinting process, printing materials, and the frontier applications in biomedicine. Addit. Manufac. Front. 2024, 3, 200175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sun, Z.; Zhao, J.; Leung, E.; Flandes-Iparranguirre, M.; Vernon, M.; Silberstein, J.; De-Juan-Pardo, E.M.; Jansen, S. Three-dimensional bioprinting in cardiovascular disease: Current status and future directions. Biomolecules 2023, 13, 1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ali, A.S.M.; Wu, D.; Bannach-Brown, A.; Dhamrait, D.; Berg, J.; Tolksdorf, B.; Lichtenstein, D.; Braeuning, A.; Kurreck, J.; Hulsemann, M. 3D bioprinting of liver models: A systematic scoping review of methods, bioinks, and reporting quality. Mater. Today Bio 2024, 26, 100991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Li, G.; He, J.; Shi, J.; Li, X.; Liu, L.; Ge, X.; Chen, W.; Jia, J.; Wang, J.; Yin, M.; et al. Bioprinting functional hepatocytes organoids derived from human chemically induced pluripotent stem cells to treat liver failure. Gut, 2025; online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 07384 g001
Figure 1. Three-dimensional-printed model of a case with a pancreaticogastric fistula. Axial and coronal (A,B) views of a CT abdomen/pelvis showing dilated pancreatic duct (red arrows). Initial 3D-printed model based on the above CT, color-coded as follows: red—aorta and arterial system, blue—portal venous system, green—biliary tree, yellow—duodenum, purple—pancreas; (C,D) show anterior and posterior views. Reprinted with permission under open access from Habermann et al. [13].
Figure 1. Three-dimensional-printed model of a case with a pancreaticogastric fistula. Axial and coronal (A,B) views of a CT abdomen/pelvis showing dilated pancreatic duct (red arrows). Initial 3D-printed model based on the above CT, color-coded as follows: red—aorta and arterial system, blue—portal venous system, green—biliary tree, yellow—duodenum, purple—pancreas; (C,D) show anterior and posterior views. Reprinted with permission under open access from Habermann et al. [13].
Applsci 15 07384 g001
Applsci 15 07384 g002
Figure 2. PRISMA flow chart showing use of search strategy to locate eligible studies.
Figure 2. PRISMA flow chart showing use of search strategy to locate eligible studies.
Applsci 15 07384 g002
Applsci 15 07384 g003
Figure 3. Three-dimensional printing materials used for gastrointestinal tract models. Numbers (percentages) in the pie chart refer to the number of studies documenting the use of these printing materials.
Figure 3. Three-dimensional printing materials used for gastrointestinal tract models. Numbers (percentages) in the pie chart refer to the number of studies documenting the use of these printing materials.
Applsci 15 07384 g003
Applsci 15 07384 g004
Figure 4. Frequency of the 3D-printed models used to print gastrointestinal anatomical sites. The stomach is the most common anatomical site to be printed.
Figure 4. Frequency of the 3D-printed models used to print gastrointestinal anatomical sites. The stomach is the most common anatomical site to be printed.
Applsci 15 07384 g004
Applsci 15 07384 g005
Figure 5. Gastric rubber-like models with silicone coatings: (A) 3D stereolithographic (STL) gastric models, derived from patient CT images; (B) model fabricated using a 3D printer; (C) CT scans of the gastric models enable comparison with the corresponding STL models. Reprinted with permission under open access from Kwon et al. [32].
Figure 5. Gastric rubber-like models with silicone coatings: (A) 3D stereolithographic (STL) gastric models, derived from patient CT images; (B) model fabricated using a 3D printer; (C) CT scans of the gastric models enable comparison with the corresponding STL models. Reprinted with permission under open access from Kwon et al. [32].
Applsci 15 07384 g005
Applsci 15 07384 g006
Figure 6. Process for preparing a 3D-printed gastroduodenal (GD) model from CT gastrography data. (a) CT images with segmentation masks. A red mask was made using a simple thresholding setting. Yellow masks were the final segmentation result after multi-step imaging. (b) Initial 3D GD digital model. (c) Modified 3D GD digital model for stent placement. (d) Anthropomorphic 3D-printed GD phantom model. Reprinted with permission under open access from Kim et al. [21].
Figure 6. Process for preparing a 3D-printed gastroduodenal (GD) model from CT gastrography data. (a) CT images with segmentation masks. A red mask was made using a simple thresholding setting. Yellow masks were the final segmentation result after multi-step imaging. (b) Initial 3D GD digital model. (c) Modified 3D GD digital model for stent placement. (d) Anthropomorphic 3D-printed GD phantom model. Reprinted with permission under open access from Kim et al. [21].
Applsci 15 07384 g006
Applsci 15 07384 g007
Figure 7. Endoscopic views of the rectum. The photos in the upper panels are from the NKS colonoscopy simulator (novel silicone rectal 3D-printed models), the middle panels from the patient, and the lower panels from the CM15 model. 1st HV: first Houston’s valve; 2nd HV: second Houston’s valve; 3rd HV: third Houston’s valve. Reprinted with permission under open access from Noda et al. [22].
Figure 7. Endoscopic views of the rectum. The photos in the upper panels are from the NKS colonoscopy simulator (novel silicone rectal 3D-printed models), the middle panels from the patient, and the lower panels from the CM15 model. 1st HV: first Houston’s valve; 2nd HV: second Houston’s valve; 3rd HV: third Houston’s valve. Reprinted with permission under open access from Noda et al. [22].
Applsci 15 07384 g007
Applsci 15 07384 g008
Figure 8. Applications of 3D-printed models in gastrointestinal diseases.
Figure 8. Applications of 3D-printed models in gastrointestinal diseases.
Applsci 15 07384 g008
Table 1. Search strategy used to identify suitable studies for inclusion in this review.
Table 1. Search strategy used to identify suitable studies for inclusion in this review.
Search Strategy 1 Search Strategy 2 Search Strategy 3
“3D print” or “3D-printed” or “3D printing” or “3 dimensional print” or “3 dimensional printed” or “3 dimensional printing” or “three dimensional print” or “three dimensional printed” or “three dimensional printing” or “additive manufacturing”AND“gastrointestinal” or “gastric” or “stomach” or “colon” or “intestine” or “esophagus” or “bowel” or “duodenum” or “rectum”AND“medical education” or “medical training” or “presurgical” or “surgical plan” or “surgical planning” or “simulation”
Table 2. Key characteristics and findings of eligible studies in this review.
Table 2. Key characteristics and findings of eligible studies in this review.
ArticleYearPurposeCountry of OriginStudy DesignSample SizeKey FindingsLimitations
Holt et al. [18]2015To develop a training model that can be used to improve technical skills, knowledge, and confidence in performing endoscopic ampullectomy.USAExperimental studyStomach and duodenum model, n = 1; participants, n = 16The training increased the confidence of 11 participants in using the model, with a mean score of 2.2 to 2.9. Participants’ ampullectomy technique improved (66.7%), which continued to increase with additional sessions involving the model (73.3%). The model had an overall visual realism score of 3.2.Resistance was encountered when passing through the stomach. There was a separation potential during endoscope maneuvers when using a rigid base and ampoule holder combination with a flexible stomach–duodenum.
Kenngott et al. [19]2015To design a phantom with realistic anatomy, haptics, modularity, and reproducibility.GermanyExperimental studyTorso model, n = 1; rectum models, n = 10; surgical residents, n = 5; surgical consultant, n = 1Accurate reproduction of a silicone organ from a 3D model was achieved. Accuracy of the silicone rectal models showed an average mean square error of 2.26 mm when compared with the original CT images. The overall haptic realism was not calculated.
Dickinson et al. [20]2015To develop 3D-printed models for complex esophageal cases.USACase reportEsophagus model, n = 2These 3D-printed models provided a good understanding of the anatomic relationships of complex esophagus cases.The sample size was small.
Kim et al. [21]2017To develop a flexible anthropomorphic 3D-printed model of malignant gastroduodenal (GD) strictures for an in vitro experiment.KoreaExperimental studyGastroduodenal model, n = 1The 3D-printed GD phantom model aided in comparing food passage between the stent abutment and non-stent abutment.The flexibility of the 3D-printed model was not sufficient to mimic actual GD properties and lacked gastric peristalsis.
Noda et al. [22]2017To design a physical simulator using 3D printing technology for a more realistic colonoscope insertion.JapanExperimental studyColonoscopy model, n = 1. Very experienced colonoscopists, n = 5; experienced colonoscopists, n = 9; less experienced colonoscopists, n = 2The new simulator was significantly more realistic than the CM15 model in terms of anatomical structure, visual response, haptic response, and looping.This simulator was made from stiff silicone and did not allow for complete deflation.
Barber et al. [23]2018To develop a reusable 3D-printed tracheoesophageal prosthesis (TEP) simulator to facilitate comprehension and rehearsal before actual procedures.USAExperimental studyEsophageal lumen, n = 1; junior residents, n = 5; senior residents, n = 5 All 10 participants agreed that the simulator exercise provided a beneficial experience, anatomic visualization, and safe practice for actual TEP procedures. This was a small-sample-size study and lacked longitudinal data. There was no follow-up to validate the survey responses from junior or senior residents.
Lee et al. [24]2018To create a stomach model for biopsy training and investigate its efficacy and realism.KoreaExperimental studyStomach model, n = 1; residents, n = 10; first-year fellows, n = 6; second-year fellows, n = 5; faculty members, n = 5The time taken to complete the training procedure with the 3D biopsy simulator decreased significantly with repeated trials (the completion times were significantly shorter than those in the first trial in all of these groups: 169. 6 versus 347 s in the resident group; 85.7 versus 143.8 s in the first-year fellow group; 96 versus 127.2 s in the second-year fellow group; and 91.2 versus 114.2 s in the faculty group, all with p < 0.05).Gastric peristalsis and the movement of the stomach owing to heartbeat and respiration were not reproduced. The elasticity could not reach the same level as that of a real stomach. There was a possible bias in evaluating the simulator using questionnaires.
Williams et al. [25]2018To evaluate the use of a 3D model of infant hypertrophic pyloric stenosis as a teaching tool for surgical residents.CanadaExperimental studyHypertrophic pyloric stenosis model, n = 1; medical students, n = 4; general surgery residents, n = 8; adult general surgeons, n = 3; pediatric surgeons, n = 2 For inexperienced participants, the time to complete the procedure was significantly reduced. Over 70% of the participants agreed that the 3D-printed model accurately simulated certain components of the pyloromyotomy and would be a good training tool for beginners (73.9%) and experts (71.4%). The sample size was small. The adult version of the box trainer caused some problems with pediatric instruments. Some participants’ self-assessment of their laparoscopic skills was above or below their actual level. Whether practice on this model translated into improved performance in the operating room was not evaluated.
Hojo et al. [26]2019To develop a 3D-printed colon model to aid in laparoscopic surgery for descending colon cancer with concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm.JapanCase reportColon model, n = 1The 3D-printed simulation helped determine the port site and visualize the vascular structures before laparoscopic surgery under challenging conditions.There was one case that lacked 3D printing details.
Lee et al. [27]2019To develop a novel 3D-printed simulator to overcome the limitations of the previous endoscopic hemostasis simulators.KoreaExperimental studyStomach hemostasis model, n = 1; endoscopists, n = 21 (first-year fellows, n = 11; experts, n = 10)The endoscopic handling in the 3D-printed simulator was realistic and reasonable for endoscopic training and could reduce patient risk. The procedure time of the beginner group decreased sharply after each trial (procedure-completing times for hemoclipping and injection were 116.1 and 161.3 s for the first trial and were reduced to 30.5 and 43 s for the fifth trial).The gastric movement was not reproduced. The evaluation using questionnaires could have been biased. The model’s elasticity differed from that of the actual stomach. The model was not compared with other simulators.
Marano et al. [28]2019To develop a life-size 3D-printed esophagus model that includes the proximal stomach, the thoracic aorta, and the diaphragmatic crus for presurgical planning.ItalyCase reportEsophagus model including the proximal stomach, n = 1This model helped surgeons verify critical structures and plan all possible maneuvers. There is no information provided about the number of surgeons who participated in the study or how useful the model was in assisting with surgical planning.
Kwon et al. [29]2020To develop a 3D-printed optimized endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) training model.South KoreaDescriptive surveyLower stomach and duodenum models, n = 8The 3D model was durable, relatively cheap, and easy to make, allowing trainees to practice various specialized ERCP procedures.The model did not reflect the same order as humans. Its surface tension was higher than that of biological tissue.
Anwari et al. [30]2020To design and construct a low-cost 3D-printed abdominal model with radiologically tissue-realistic and modular anthropomorphism.CanadaDescriptive surveySmall and large bowel model, n = 1This survey outlined the specific steps in creating a 3D-printed anthropomorphic abdominal model using CT-based scans with radiologically accurate tissue characteristics.The model was not validated.
Hojo et al. [31]2020To use 3D-printed models and 3D virtual images to help resect intraabdominal recurrence in colorectal cancer.JapanDescriptive surveyColon models, n = 2The 3D-printed model provided patient-specific anatomy and accurately identified the location of the recurrent lesion for surgeons.The sample size was small. The study design was retrospective and lacked statistical analyses.
Kwon et al. [32]2020To develop 3D-printed gastric models with patient-specific, anthropomorphic, and mechanical characteristics similar to those of the human stomach for the intragastric balloon technique.South KoreaExperimental studyStomach model, n = 3The 3D-printed models were printed with materials comprising Agilus, Elastic, and Flexa to test their mechanical properties. The mean elongation and tensile strengths of Agilus, Elastic, and Flexa were 264%, 145%, and 146% and 1.14, 1.59, and 21.6 MPa, respectively. Agilus was the most flexible material, with elongation showing the most similar ranges to human stomachs.The study had a small sample size with no analysis of these 3D-printed models in terms of clinical training or practical value.
Hojo et al. [33]2021To establish a 3D-printed model comprising the superior mesenteric artery and superior mesenteric vein to optimize laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.JapanExperimental studyDuodenum
model, n = 5		The application of the 3D-printed models simulated the surgical site effectively in colorectal surgery and helped young surgeons understand the anatomical relationship in the variable intraoperative views.Limitations included technical difficulties and the time required to create the 3D models. This retrospective study lacked effectiveness in clinical application.
Oxford et al. [34]2021Test the face and content validity of a 3D-printed bowel anastomosis simulator.CanadaExperimental studyLarge intestine, n = 1; small intestine, n = 1; senior residents, n = 3; general surgeons, n = 6 The simulator was regarded as highly realistic and helpful for training. An overall score of 3.98 was ranked for training and 4.11 for simulation-based medical education.The layers and walls of the simulator need to be improved. The study lacked control group comparisons with the human bowel and other available simulators.
Habti et al. [35]2021To develop a 3D-printed, low-cost, and realistic bowel model for hand-sewn bowel anastomosis (HSBA) training.CanadaExperimental studySmall intestine simulator, n = 18; surgical residents, n = 16The simulators were considered realistic and useful tools to learn and practice HSBA. The residents’ experience was limited. The silicone tore off quickly during suturing.
Neville et al. [36]2022To create and validate a novel, affordable 3D-printed simulation model for open esophageal atresia and/or tracheoesophageal fistula repair.UKExperimental studyEsophagus, n = 1; experienced group (consultants, n = 11; senior registrar, n = 1); inexperienced group (senior house officers, n = 3; registrars, n = 20; consultants, n = 5)The 3D-printed model was cost-effective, reusable, and visually and functionally comparable to the actual procedure. The anatomical realism of the model scored 4.2 out of 5.0, and surgical realism scored 3.9. All participants strongly agreed that the model was useful for pediatric surgery training (mean score 4.9).The availability of evaluation training resources can differ significantly between countries. Self-reported levels of experience are likely to be inaccurate. The impact of this model-based training on patient outcomes remains unknown.
Steger et al. [37]2023To develop and validate a novel model using 3D printing technology for adhesion forces between the colon and the abdominal wall.GermanyExperimental studyColon training model, n = 1; medical student, n = 1; assistant doctors, n = 3; surgeons, n = 5; gastrointestinal endoscopy experts, n = 2The simulator was considered more realistic in terms of anatomical representation, including visual and tactile feedback and colon shape, and it permitted a more realistic distinction between different skill levels.The impact of this simulator on actual clinical practice outcomes remains unknown.
Mowry et al. [38]2023To develop a 3D-printed balloon tamponade tube (BT) model and evaluate the performance of gastroenterology fellows and faculty in BT tube placement after training with the model.USAExperimental studyEsophagus and stomach model, n = 1; gastroenterology fellows, n = 15; gastroenterology faculty, n = 14The participants’ knowledge and confidence in placing a BT tube improved significantly after 3D-printed simulator training. Self-confidence was significantly increased in both the fellow group (from 3.7 to 6.5, p < 0.001) and the faculty group (from 4.8 to 8.0, p < 0.001). A high degree of satisfaction was noted by both groups after training.This was a single-center, small-sample-size study. No data were available on the time to competence or the sustainability of the training beyond 3 months. Moreover, the impact of the training on clinical outcomes was not assessed.
Zahradniková et al. [39]2023To develop an inexpensive and reusable 3D-printed model for thoracoscopic esophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal fistula repair training.SlovakiaExperimental studyEsophagus model, n = 1; medical students, n = 7; pediatric surgery trainees, n = 4; experienced surgeons, n = 7Most participants observed that the 3D model was an appropriate training tool. The highest ratings in the physical attribute area were for the overall impression and the tool’s usefulness as a simulator, with mean scores of 4.66 and 4.75. Participants ranked the model’s realism and working environment with mean scores of 4.25 and 4.5, respectively.This was a single-center study with a small sample size.
Gu et al. [40]2024To develop a large-intestine model using 3D-printed technology to provide training in colonoscope insertion, cecum intubation, loop reduction, and stenting within stenotic areas. KoreaRetrospective descriptive studyLarge intestine model, n = 1The model allowed for the repeated practice of basic colonoscope insertion and stent placement for colonic stenosis and achieved a life-like representation of colonic malignant tumor-induced stenosis.The surface tension of silicone is greater than that of human colonic mucosa. Hence, the increased friction between the model surface and the endoscope resulted in strong resistance when the endoscope was inserted. This model did not create a stenosis module at the exact angulation location.
Keller-Biehl et al. [41]2024To create a 3D rectal model, including the tumor and surrounding structures, to help in preoperative and intraoperative planning.USACase reportGastrointestinal stromal tumor model, n = 1The 3D model added value to patient care and helped the patient understand the surgery.The model did not provide any new information or alter the surgical plan. The more expensive model did not offer additional or better information than the cheaper one.
Yu et al. [42]2024To create a 3D-printed gastrointestinal model using the PVA/PAM tridimensional hydrogel.ChinaExperimental studyNovel elastic hydrogel model for surgical training, n = 1 The new-material 3D-printed model exhibited positive qualities in the following factors: appearance levels, overall difficulty, stomach wall structure, tissue elasticity, and tactile feedback.The content validity of the model needs to be improved, particularly in terms of enhancing surgical skills and shortening the learning curve.
Table 3. Three-dimensional printing details reported in the studies reviewed.
Table 3. Three-dimensional printing details reported in the studies reviewed.
ArticleOrgans PrintedImaging
Modalities Used for 3D Printing		Software for Image Processing and Segmentation3D Printer3D Printer Materials3D Printing MethodsPrinting TimePrinting Cost
Holt et al. [18]Stomach and duodenumN/ASolidworks Corp., Waltham, MA, USAConnex 260 v; Stratasys Inc., Eden Prairie, MN, USASilicone rubberN/AN/AUSD 1175
Kenngott et al. [19]RectumCT image MITK (German Cancer Research Center Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany); VTK (Kitware Inc., New York, NY, USA); ITK (Kitware Inc., New York, NY, USA)Z 450, Z Corporation, Burlington, VT, USASoft silicone (Ecoflex 0010, Ecoflex 0030, and Dragon SkinFX/Pro) Silicone additive slacker (Smooth-On Inc., Easton, MN, USA) N/AN/AUSD 200
Dickinson et al. [20]EsophagusCT Proprietary software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium); Mimics software (Objet350 Connex multi-material, Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA)PolyJet 3D printer (Stratasys)N/AN/AN/AN/A
Kim et al. [21]Stomach and duodenumCT Inhouse advanced software (AVIEW, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea)Objet500 Connex3, Stratasys Corporation, Rehovot, IsraelRubber-like material (Tango™ Family)N/AN/AN/A
Noda et al. [22]Sigmoid colon and rectumCT VINCENT Ver3.3, FUJIFILM Med. Sys. Corp. Japan, Tokyo, Japan)Fortus 360Lmc-L, Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USASilicone N/AN/AN/A
Barber et al. [23]EsophagusN/AFusion 360 CAD software (Autodesk, San Rafael, CA, USA)Ultimaker 2 + 3D printer (Ultimaker, The Netherlands) Polylactic acid (PLA)N/AN/AUSD 35–USD 50
Lee et al. [24]StomachCT 3D slicer version 4.5.0 MeshMixer 3.0 (Autodesk, San Rafael, CA, USA)(FDM) 3D printer (clone S270 and clone K300, K. Clone, Daejeon, Republic of Korea; Replicator 2, MakerBot, Brooklyn, NY, USA)PlatSil Gel-10 (Polytech, Easton, PA, USA) siliconeFused deposition modeling (FDM)N/AUSD 230
Williams et al. [25]StomachN/ACAD softwareLulzbot TAZ4 3D printer (Aleph Objects Inc., Loveland, CO, USA)PLA silicone rubber (Smooth-On Inc., Macungie, PA, USA) N/AN/AUSD 30/stomach
Hojo et al. [26]ColonCT N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Lee et al. [27]StomachN/ANetfabb professional version 5 (Netfabb GmbH, Lupburg, Germany)Form 2 (Formlabs Inc., Somerville, MA, USA)Soft silicone, Platsil Gel-10 (Polytek, Easton, PA, USA)N/AN/AUSD 200
Marano et al. [28]Esophagus, proximal stomachCT N/AN/ACuring resinStereolithography48 working hoursUSD 230
Kwon et al. [29]Lower stomach and duodenumCT MeshLab MeshMixer3DM DW-06, 3DMaterials, Zeron-2500, Zeron, Republic of KoreaSilicone material (Dragon Skin 10, Smooth-On, USA)N/AN/AN/A
Anwari et al. [30]Small and large bowelCT Vitrea®, v.6.9, Vital Images, Minnetonka, MN Slicer software v.4.7.0 (Boston, MA, USA); CAD software (Blender, v.2.78 Amsterdam, The Netherlands)Rostock Max V2 printerAcrylonitrile butadiene styrene plasticFDMN/AUSD 900
(including the liver, colon, kidneys, and spleen)
Hojo et al. [31]ColonCT N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Kwon et al. [32]StomachCT Mimics Research 17.0 software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) Elastic/Form 2, Formlabs Inc., MA, USA; Flexa 693/XFAB, DWS Inc., Meccanica, Italy; Agilus Translucent, Vero Magenta/Objet500, Stratasys, Ltd., Eden Prairie, MN, USA)Rubber-like material (Agilus Transparent; Stratasys Ltd.); silicone (MED6-6606; NuSil, CA, USA) Laser stereolithography
PolyJet printing		N/AN/A
Hojo et al. [33]DuodenumCT OsiriX MD (Pixmeo Sarl, Bernex, Switzerland); Meshmixer version 3.5 (Autodesk Inc., Venice, CA, USA) Airwolf 3D, Fountain Valley, CA, USAPLAFDM10 hUSD 10
Oxford et al. [34]Small and large bowelN/AFusion 360 CAD softwareUltimaker S5 3D printer Smooth-On siliconeN/AN/AUSD 2.67–USD 131
Habti et al. [35]Small bowelN/AFusion360™ (Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA, USA)Ultimaker S5 3D printer (Ultimaker B.V., Utrecht, The Netherlands)3D-Fuel™ Pro PLA filament material (Fargo, ND, USA) siliconeN/AN/AUSD 35
Neville et al. [36]EsophagusCT ITK-SNAP version 3.8.0; Meshmixer and Fusion 360 (Autodesk Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA) Prusa i3 MK3S 3D printer (Prusa Research, Prague, Czech Republic)Platinum-catalyzed silicone (Smooth-On Inc., Macungie, PA, USA)N/AN/A£20
Steger et al. [37]ColonN/AAutodesk ReCap; Meshmixer (Autodesk, Inc., San Rafael, CA, USA); Fusion 360 (Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA, USA)SLA printer Formlabs2 (Formlabs GmbH, Berlin, Germany)Durable resinN/AN/A£260
Mowry et al. [38]Esophagus and a portion of the stomachN/AN/AN/APlastic (NinjaFLEX)N/AN/AN/A
Zahradniková et al. [39]Esophagus CT 3D Slicer Blender3DPrusa i3 MK3SPrusament PLA plastic siliconeFDM slightly < 24 hN/A
Gu et al. [40]Large intestineCT MEDIP PRO v2.0.0 (Medical IP Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea)FDM-type 3D printersiliconeFDMN/AN/A
Keller-Biehl et al. [41]RectumCT Mimics Materialise (Leuven, Belgium), medical segmentation softwareDynamism xRize 3D printer (Denver, CO, USA); Stratasys J750 Digital Anatomy Printer (Minnetonka, MN, USA)Colorful resin, a translucent and flexible maN/A6–8 hUSD 30–USD 300
Yu et al. [42]Stomach and small and large bowelCT and MR Mimics Materialise Magic 24 softwareFDM printerPVA/PAM hydrogelsFDMN/AN/A
Table 4. Quality assessment of articles using the scoring method developed by Sirriyeh et al. [17].
Table 4. Quality assessment of articles using the scoring method developed by Sirriyeh et al. [17].
ArticlesCriterion 1Criterion 2Criterion 3Criterion 4Criterion 5Criterion 6Criterion 7Criterion 8Criterion 9Criterion 10Criterion 11Criterion 12Criterion 13Criterion 14ScoreQA
Holt et al. [18]333023033303032969.0%
Kenngott et al. [19]333023023323022969.0%
Dickinson et al. [20]112012021201011433.3%
Kim et al. [21]233033013323032969.0%
Noda et al. [22]333023133323023173.8%
Barber et al. [23]232022023302022354.8%
Lee et al. [24]333033033303033071.4%
Williams et al. [25]333033233323033481.0%
Hojo et al. [26]12201001000101921.4%
Lee et al. [27]333023033302032866.7%
Marano et al. [28]333011020202032047.6%
Kwon et al. [29]333301022202032457.1%
Anwari et al. [30]333022020000021740.5%
Hojo et al. [31]112020020202021433.3%
Kwon et al. [32]333023222203032866.7%
Hojo et al. [33]233022022202022252.4%
Oxford et al. [34]333023033303032969.0%
Habti et al. [35]233023233323033276.2%
Neville et al. [36]333033033303033071.4%
Steger et al. [37]333023033313133173.8%
Mowry et al. [38]333023033303032969.0%
Zahradniková et al. [39]333023023323033071.4%
Gu et al. [40]333002010202031945.2%
Keller-Biehl et al. [41]222001021201021535.7%
Yu et al. [42]333023032323033071.4%
Criteria 1–14: 1: Explicit theoretical framework. 2: Statement of aim/objective. 3: Research setting description. 4: Sample size considered in terms of analysis. 5: Reasonably sized and representative sample. 6: Description of procedure for data collection. 7: Rationale for choice of data collection tool(s). 8: Detailed recruitment data. 9: Question correlates with data collection tool. 10: Question correlates with analysis method. 11: Justification for analytical method. 12: Reliability of analytical process assessed. 13: User involvement in design. 14: Strengths and limitations. Criteria: 0 = not at all, 1 = very slightly, 2 = moderately, and 3 = complete. QA—quality assessment.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lei, J.; Tee, L.B.G.; Ragunath, K.; Sun, Z. Three-Dimensional-Printed Gastrointestinal Tract Models for Surgical Planning and Medical Education: A Systematic Review. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 7384. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137384

AMA Style

Lei J, Tee LBG, Ragunath K, Sun Z. Three-Dimensional-Printed Gastrointestinal Tract Models for Surgical Planning and Medical Education: A Systematic Review. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(13):7384. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137384

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lei, Jing, Lisa B. G. Tee, Krish Ragunath, and Zhonghua Sun. 2025. "Three-Dimensional-Printed Gastrointestinal Tract Models for Surgical Planning and Medical Education: A Systematic Review" Applied Sciences 15, no. 13: 7384. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137384

APA Style

Lei, J., Tee, L. B. G., Ragunath, K., & Sun, Z. (2025). Three-Dimensional-Printed Gastrointestinal Tract Models for Surgical Planning and Medical Education: A Systematic Review. Applied Sciences, 15(13), 7384. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137384

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop