{"id":129458,"date":"2026-09-03T07:28:12","date_gmt":"2026-09-03T07:28:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/europe\/129458\/"},"modified":"2026-09-03T07:28:12","modified_gmt":"2026-09-03T07:28:12","slug":"european-neurosurgery-survey-finds-3d-printing-shifting-in-house-as-implant-use-grows","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/europe\/129458\/","title":{"rendered":"European neurosurgery survey finds 3D printing shifting in-house as implant use grows"},"content":{"rendered":"

Researchers from University Medical Center Hamburg\u2013Eppendorf<\/a> and institutions of the German Armed Forces<\/a> have identified a shift toward in-house 3D printing across European neurosurgical departments between 2020 and 2025. Survey results also show implant fabrication emerging as a clinical application, while dependence on external printing providers declined.<\/p>\n

Published in the International Journal of Bioprinting<\/a>, the study compared two cross-sectional surveys of European neurosurgeons conducted five years apart. Researchers analyzed 172 completed questionnaires, including 114 responses from 44 countries in 2020 and 58 responses from 19 countries in 2025.<\/p>\n

Sixteen participants completed both surveys. As the two respondent groups were not identical, the authors emphasize that the results indicate temporal trends rather than changes within individual hospitals.<\/p>\n

Neurosurgical 3D printing moves in-house<\/p>\n

One of the largest changes involved responsibility for producing 3D printed parts and models. In 2020, none of the surveyed departments reported neurosurgeons directly performing 3D printing. By 2025, this had increased to 20.68%, a statistically significant change.<\/p>\n

Engineer involvement similarly rose from 1.18% to 18.96%, while printing performed by research staff increased from zero to 12.06%. At the same time, departments identifying an external company as their printing resource fell from 21.81% in 2020 to zero among the 2025 respondents.<\/p>\n

The researchers comment on how these changes suggest growing institutional ownership of 3D printing capabilities. Most 2025 respondents also reported that dedicated 3D printing centers had been established after 2020, with centralized in-house laboratories representing the most common collaboration model.<\/p>\n

Access appears to have improved alongside this infrastructure. More than half of the 2025 respondents reported better access to 3D printing capacity since 2020. Departments most commonly reported occasional or regular use, although routine deployment remained comparatively limited.<\/p>\n

Single-case-only applications fell significantly from 20% in 2020 to zero in 2025. Researchers interpret this alongside growing regular use as evidence that 3D printing is moving beyond isolated applications and becoming integrated into recurring clinical workflows.<\/p>\n

\"ChangesChanges in departmental 3D printing use and responsibility between 2020 and 2025. Image via \u00d6zdemir et al., International Journal of Bioprinting, 2026.<\/p>\n

Implant fabrication emerges as a clinical application<\/p>\n

Another significant change involved the types of applications being reported. Surgical planning and resident training remained established uses, but implant fabrication increased from zero respondents in 2020 to 27.58% in 2025.<\/p>\n

This represents a move beyond anatomical models used for visualization, education and simulation toward parts that can play a direct role in clinical treatment. Researchers argue that this expansion increases the importance of accuracy, biocompatibility, regulatory compliance and formal quality-management procedures.<\/p>\n

Respondents continued to identify neuro-oncology, skull-base surgery, spine surgery and vascular neurosurgery as areas with considerable potential for 3D printing. Surgical planning and resident training remained the most frequently identified prospective applications, followed by research and patient education.<\/p>\n

Fused deposition modeling remained the most commonly reported printing technology in both surveys. However, the 2025 responses indicated increased use of selective laser sintering, selective laser melting and multi-jet modeling, which the authors associate with diversification of departments\u2019 technical capabilities.<\/p>\n

Many clinicians nevertheless reported not knowing which printing technologies or software were being used within their departments. Researchers suggest that technical implementation may remain concentrated among individual users or specialist teams even where equipment is available internally.<\/p>\n

Quality management and institutional support remain barriers<\/p>\n

Greater access has not been matched by widespread implementation of formal quality assessment. Survey responses showed that quality-management procedures remained limited, a concern the researchers highlight as applications expand toward implantable devices.<\/p>\n

Time constraints were the most frequently identified barrier to broader implementation in the 2025 survey. Insufficient institutional support and cost followed, alongside lack of expertise and regulatory issues.<\/p>\n

Respondents generally viewed the clinical value of 3D printing more positively than they had five years earlier, and most also reported improved cost efficiency. Improvements in funding and institutional support were less widely reported, indicating what the authors describe as a gap between clinical enthusiasm and administrative commitment.<\/p>\n

Evidence of clinical impact also remains incomplete. While some respondents said their institutions had produced research demonstrating clinical or educational benefits, the majority said such evidence was not yet available. Around 38% reported ongoing research related to 3D printing.<\/p>\n

Researchers therefore call for prospective studies assessing factors including operative time, complication rates, patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Standardized quality metrics and reporting practices could also allow results to be compared between institutions as hospital-based 3D printing becomes more established.<\/p>\n

The authors suggest that one possible pathway for adoption could begin with external providers before progressing toward local collaboration, internal capabilities and ultimately dedicated hospital 3D printing units. Such workflows would require interdisciplinary cooperation between clinicians and technical specialists alongside standardized segmentation, validation and quality-assurance procedures.<\/p>\n

\"InstitutionalInstitutional development, utilization patterns and perceived impact of 3D printing in neurosurgery in 2025. Image via \u00d6zdemir et al., International Journal of Bioprinting, 2026.<\/p>\n

Hospitals take greater control of medical 3D printing<\/p>\n

Greater hospital control over 3D printing brings added responsibility for validation, quality management and regulatory compliance. In Spain, Madrid\u2019s Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre<\/a> expanded its UTADI 3D unit into a certified designer and manufacturer of custom medical devices<\/a> under UNE-EN ISO 13485:2018. The unit operates dedicated design and manufacturing facilities and is subject to quality and traceability requirements associated with medical device production.<\/p>\n

The regulatory demands become more pronounced when hospital printing extends to implants. In the US, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center<\/a> recently became the first point-of-care institution to obtain FDA<\/a> clearance for an implant it manufactures itself. Its 3D Medical Applications Center<\/a> secured 510(k) clearance for a patient-specific titanium cranial plate after establishing a quality management system and validating its design and manufacturing processes. Walter Reed is itself the regulated manufacturer.<\/p>\n

3D Printing Industry is inviting speakers for its 2026 Additive Manufacturing Applications (AMA) series, covering Energy, Healthcare, Automotive and Mobility, Aerospace, Space and Defense, and Software. Each online event focuses on real production deployments, qualification, and supply chain integration. Practitioners interested in contributing can complete the call for speakers form here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

To stay up to date with the latest 3D printing news, don\u2019t forget to subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter<\/a> or follow us on LinkedIn<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Explore the full Future of 3D Printing<\/a> and Executive Survey<\/a> series from 3D Printing Industry, featuring perspectives from CEOs, engineers, and industry leaders on the industrialization of additive manufacturing<\/a>, 3D printing industry trends 2026<\/a>, qualification, supply chains, and additive manufacturing industry analysis<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Feature image shows changes in departmental 3D printing use and responsibility between 2020 and 2025. Image via \u00d6zdemir et al., International Journal of Bioprinting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Researchers from University Medical Center Hamburg\u2013Eppendorf and institutions of the German Armed Forces have identified a shift toward…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":129459,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[63559,15,2790,63560,63561,63562,63563,63564,63565],"class_list":["post-129458","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-europe","tag-3d-medical-applications-center","tag-european","tag-german-armed-forces","tag-hospital-universitario-12-de-octubre","tag-international-journal-of-bioprinting","tag-u-s-food-and-drug-administration-fda","tag-university-medical-center-hamburg-eppendorf","tag-utadi-3d","tag-walter-reed-national-military-medical-center"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/europe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129458","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/europe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/europe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/europe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/europe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129458"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/europe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129458\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/europe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/129459"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/europe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129458"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/europe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129458"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/europe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129458"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}