## 4 Discussion and Conclusions  
### Discussion  
In the context of tumors, adequate information and understanding conveyed to a competent patient provides a sound basis for voluntary and rational decision-making [14]. Thus, the primary goal of informed surgical consent is establishing a rudimentary appreciation of key principles, including organ anatomy, physiology, and attributes, tumor location, and potential operative complications [7]. In portraying a solid tumor, capsular breech and invasion of surrounding tissues are other important considerations that a 3D model effectively addresses. A personalized model rendered by a 3D printer reinforces the mutual sense of awareness needed between patient and physician [7]. Only a few studies to date have tested 3D models in patients facing thoracic, kidney, or orthopedic surgeries, but they have regularly shown improved preoperative understanding or satisfaction [7; 8; 9]. Still, a number of issues pertaining to cost, resolution, and duration of printing and material texture must be resolved before 3D-printed models become more mainstream [11]. Our novel methodology offers several advantages. The customary segmentation of targeted objects entailed in 3D reconstruction of tomographic images is readily applicable to mesh-type 3D modeling. Hence, newer CT systems are not required and routine CT protocols for specific organs may be utilized. Likewise, an expensive 3D printer is not essential. Even if just two colors are available, tumors and normal structures can be printed in different colors and the density of the same color can be changed to differentiate two or more normal structures. In addition, the solid form can be used together; tumors may be printed as either solid or mesh forms. Solid replicas may provide better visibility of small lesions. Filament requirements (and thus costs) are similarly reduced because the printed organs are largely empty inside. Given a magnitude \(\leq\) 10 cm, most models were fabricated within half a day. Thus, the day after computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies were obtained, completed models were feasible. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Model**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Dimensions** \\ **(cm)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \begin{tabular}{c} **Relation** \\ **to Actual** \\ **Size** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Printing** \\ **Time** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Post-** \\ **Processing** \\ **Time (min)** \\ \end{tabular} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cost**} \\ \hline Thyroid tumor & 5.3 \(\times\) 3.0 \(\times\) 6.5 & 1 & 2 h 50 min & 10 & \$2.72 \\ \hline Thyroid gland and adjacent cartilage & & & & & \\ \hline Maximillary tumor & 7.1 \(\times\) 5.7 \(\times\) 4.7 & 1 & 9 h 4 min & 15 & \$8.24 \\ \hline Parathyroid adenoma & 4.0 \(\times\) 3.1 \(\times\) 5.5 & 1 & 5 h 3 min & 10 & \$3.71 \\ \hline Breast tumor & 6.2 \(\times\) 5.2 \(\times\) 5.9 & \(\frac{1}{2}\) & 6 h 41 min & 5 & \$7.78 \\ \hline Lung nodule & 6.8 \(\times\) 8.0 \(\times\) 13.5 & \(\frac{1}{2}\) & 23 h 4 min & 40 & \$33.67 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Specifications, production times, and costs of various mesh-type 3D models. Figure 3: Side-by-side comparison of a 3D-printed thyroidal prototype and a corresponding surgical specimen. There is some concern that mesh-type 3D modeling results do not accurately reflect the organs or the tumors they represent. However, further attempts at refinement may nevertheless impose unwanted steps. For example, CT imaging at 1-mm slice thickness (vs. routine setting) as a means of enhancing replication demands higher radiation exposure. Although not statistically proven, the size and contour of a printed thyroid gland and the tumor situated within it satisfactorily mimicked attributes of the corresponding surgical specimen, confirming this approach as a viable tool for personalized care.