Organ printing

Sacrificial writing into function tissue (SWIFT) is a method of organ printing where living cells are packed tightly to mimic the density that occurs in the human body. While packing, tunnels are carved to mimic blood vessels and oxygen and essential nutrients are delivered via these tunnels. This technique pieces together other methods that only packed cells or created vasculature. SWIFT combines both and is an improvement that brings researchers closer to creating functional artificial organs.[2]

This method of organ printing uses spatially controlled light or laser to create a 2D pattern that is layered through a selective photopolymerization in the bio-ink reservoir. A 3D structure can then be built in layers using the 2D pattern. Afterwards the bio-ink is removed from the final product. SLA bioprinting allows for the creation of complex shapes and internal structures. The feature resolution for this method is extremely high and the only disadvantage is the scarcity of resins that are biocompatible.[14]

Drop-based bioprinting makes cellular developments utilizing droplets of an assigned material, which has oftentimes been combined with a cell line. Cells themselves can also be deposited in this manner with or without polymer. When printing polymer scaffolds using these methods, each drop starts to polymerize upon contact with the substrate surface and merge into a larger structure as droplets start to coalesce. Polymerization can happen through a variety of methods depending on the polymer used. For instance, alginate polymerization is started by calcium ions in the substrate, which diffuse into the liquified bioink and permit for the arrangement of a strong gel. Drop-based bioprinting is commonly utilized due to its productive speed. However, this may make it less appropriate for more complicated organ structures.[15]

Extrusion bioprinting includes the consistent statement of a specific printing fabric and cell line from an extruder, a sort of portable print head. This tends to be a more controlled and gentler handle for fabric or cell statement, and permits for more noteworthy cell densities to be utilized within the development of 3D tissue or organ structures. In any case, such benefits are set back by the slower printing speeds involved by this procedure. Extrusion bioprinting is frequently coupled with UV light, which photopolymerizes the printed fabric to create a more steady, coordinated construct.[11]

Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is more common and inexpensive compared to selective laser sintering. This printer uses a printhead that is similar in structure to an inkjet printer; however, ink is not used. Plastic beads are heated at high temperature and released from the printhead as it moves, building the object in thin layers.[3] A variety of plastics can be used with FDM printers. Additionally, most of the parts printed by FDM are typically composed from the same thermoplastics that are utilized in tradition injection molding or machining techniques.[3] Due to this, these parts have analogous durability, mechanical properties, and stability characteristics.[3] Precision control allows for a consistent release amount and specific location deposition for each layer contributing to the shape.[3] As the heated plastic is deposited from the printhead, it fuses or bonds to the layers below. As each layer cools, they harden and gradually take hold of the solid shape intended to be created as more layers are contributed to the structure.

Selective laser sintering (SLS) uses powdered material as the substrate for printing new objects. SLS can be used to create metal, plastic, and ceramic objects. This technique uses a laser controlled by a computer as the power source to sinter powdered material.[16] The laser traces a cross-section of the shape of the desired object in the powder, which fuses it together into a solid form.[16] A new layer of powder is then laid down and the process repeats itself, building each layer with every new application of powder, one by one, to form the entirety of the object. One of the advantages of SLS printing is that it requires very little additional tooling, i.e. sanding, once the object is printed.[16] Recent advances in organ printing using SLS include 3D constructs of craniofacial implants as well as scaffolds for cardiac tissue engineering.[16]

Materials for 3D printing usually consist of alginate or fibrin polymers that have been integrated with cellular adhesion molecules, which support the physical attachment of cells. Such polymers are specifically designed to maintain structural stability and be receptive to cellular integration. The term bio-ink has been used as a broad classification of materials that are compatible with 3D bioprinting.[18] Hydrogel alginates have emerged as one of the most commonly used materials in organ printing research, as they are highly customizable, and can be fine-tuned to simulate certain mechanical and biological properties characteristic of natural tissue. The ability of hydrogels to be tailored to specific needs allows them to be used as an adaptable scaffold material, that are suited for a variety of tissue or organ structures and physiological conditions.[19] A major challenge in the use of alginate is its stability and slow degradation, which makes it difficult for the artificial gel scaffolding to be broken down and replaced with the implanted cells' own extracellular matrix.[20] Alginate hydrogel that is suitable for extrusion printing is also often less structurally and mechanically sound; however, this issue can be mediated by the incorporation of other biopolymers, such as nanocellulose, to provide greater stability. The properties of the alginate or mixed-polymer bioink are tunable and can be altered for different applications and types of organs.[20]

Other natural polymers that have been used for tissue and 3D organ printing include chitosan, hydroxyapatite (HA), collagen, and gelatin. Gelatin is a thermosensitive polymer with properties exhibiting excellent wear solubility, biodegradability, biocompatibility, as well as a low immunologic rejection.[21] These qualities are advantageous and result in high acceptance of the 3D bioprinted organ when implanted in vivo.[21]

Synthetic polymers are human made through chemical reactions of monomers. Their mechanical properties are favorable in that their molecular weights can be regulated from low to high based on differing requirements.[21] However, their lack of functional groups and structural complexity has limited their usage in organ printing. Current synthetic polymers with excellent 3D printability and in vivo tissue compatibility, include polyethylene glycol (PEG), poly(lactic-glycolic acid) (PLGA), and polyurethane (PU). PEG is a biocompatible, nonimmunogenic synthetic polyether that has tunable mechanical properties for use in 3D bioprinting.[21] Though PEG has been utilized in various 3D printing applications, the lack of cell-adhesive domains has limited further use in organ printing. PLGA, a synthetic copolymer, is widely familiar in living creatures, such as animals, humans, plants, and microorganisms. PLGA is used in conjunction with other polymers to create different material systems, including PLGA-gelatin, PLGA-collagen, all of which enhance mechanical properties of the material, biocompatible when placed in vivo, and have tunable biodegradability.[21] PLGA has most often been used in printed constructs for bone, liver, and other large organ regeneration efforts. Lastly, PU is unique in that it can be classified into two groups: biodegradable or non-biodegradable.[21] It has been used in the field of bioprinting due to its excellent mechanical and bioinert properties. An application of PU would be inanimate artificial hearts; however, using existing 3D bioprinters, this polymer cannot be printed.[21] A new elastomeric PU was created composed of PEG and polycaprolactone (PCL) monomers.[21] This new material exhibits excellent biocompatibility, biodegradability, bioprintability, and biostability for use in complex bioartificial organ printing and manufacturing.[21] Due to high vascular and neural network construction, this material can be applied to organ printing in a variety of complex ways, such as the brain, heart, lung, and kidney.

Natural-synthetic hybrid polymers are based on the synergic effect between synthetic and biopolymeric constituents.[21] Gelatin-methacryloyl (GelMA) has become a popular biomaterial in the field of bioprinting. GelMA has shown it has viable potential as a bioink material due to its suitable biocompatibility and readily tunable psychochemical properties.[21] Hyaluronic acid (HA)-PEG is another natural-synthetic hybrid polymer that has proven to be very successful in bioprinting applications. HA combined with synthetic polymers aid in obtaining more stable structures with high cell viability and limited loss in mechanical properties after printing.[21] A recent application of HA-PEG in bioprinting is the creation of artificial liver. Lastly, a series of biodegradable polyurethane (PU)-gelatin hybrid polymers with tunable mechanical properties and efficient degradation rates have been implemented in organ printing.[21] This hybrid has the ability to print complicated structures such as a nose-shaped construct.

All of the polymers described above have the potential to be manufactured into implantable, bioartificial organs for purposes including, but not limited to, customized organ restoration, drug screening, as well as metabolic model analysis.

The creation of a complete organ often requires incorporation of a variety of different cell types, arranged in distinct and patterned ways. One advantage of 3D-printed organs, compared to traditional transplants, is the potential to use cells derived from the patient to make the new organ. This significantly decreases the likelihood of transplant rejection, and may remove the need for immunosuppressive drugs after transplant, which would reduce the health risks of transplants. However, since it may not always be possible to collect all the needed cell types, it may be necessary to collect adult stem cells or induce pluripotency in collected tissue.[19] This involves resource-intensive cell growth and differentiation and comes with its own set of potential health risks, since cell proliferation in a printed organ occurs outside the body and requires external application of growth factors. However, the ability of some tissues to self-organize into differentiated structures may provide a way to simultaneously construct the tissues and form distinct cell populations, improving the efficacy and functionality of organ printing.[22]

Currently, the sole method for treatment for those in organ failure is to await a transplant from a living or recently deceased donor.[23] In the United States alone, there are over 100,000 patients on the organ transplant list waiting for donor organs to become available.[24] Patients on the donor list can wait days, weeks, months, or even years for a suitable organ to become available. The average wait time for some common organ transplants are as follows: four months for a heart or lung, eleven months for a liver, two years for a pancreas, and five years for a kidney.[25] This is a significant increase from the 1990s, when a patient could wait as little as five weeks for a heart.[23] These extensive wait times are due to a shortage of organs as well as the requirement for finding an organ that is suitable for the recipient.[25] An organ is deemed suitable for a patient based on blood type, comparable body size between donor and recipient, the severity of the patient's medical condition, the length of time the patient has been waiting for an organ, patient availability (i.e. ability to contact patient, if patient has an infection), the proximity of the patient to the donor, and the viability time of the donor organ.[26] In the United States, 20 people die everyday waiting for organs.[24] 3D organ printing has the potential to remove both these issues; if organs could be printed as soon as there is need, there would be no shortage. Additionally, seeding printed organs with a patient's own cells would eliminate the need to screen donor organs for compatibility.

Surgical usage of 3D printing has evolved from printing surgical instrumentation to the development of patient-specific technologies for total joint replacements, dental implants, and hearing aids.[27] In the field of organ printing, applications can be applied for patients and surgeons. For instance, printed organs have been used to model structure and injury to better understand the anatomy and discuss a treatment regime with patients.[28] For these cases, the functionality of the organ is not required and is used for proof-of-concept. These model organs provide advancement for improving surgical techniques, training inexperienced surgeons, and moving towards patient-specific treatments.[28]

3D organ printing technology permits the fabrication of high degrees of complexity with great reproducibility, in a fast and cost-effective manner.[3] 3D printing has been used in pharmaceutical research and fabrication, providing a transformative system allowing precise control of droplet size and dose, personalized medicine, and the production of complex drug-release profiles.[3] This technology calls for implantable drug delivery devices, in which the drug is injected into the 3D printed organ and is released once in vivo.[3] Also, organ printing has been used as a transformative tool for in vitro testing.[3] The printed organ can be utilized in discovery and dosage research upon drug-release factors.[3]

Organ printing technology can also be combined with microfluidic technology to develop organs-on-chips.[29] These organs-on-chips have the potential to be used for disease models, aiding in drug discovery, and performing high-throughput assays.[29] Organ-on-chips work by providing a 3D model that imitates the natural extracellular matrix, allowing them to display realistic responses to drugs.[29] Thus far, research has been focused on developing liver-on-a-chip and heart-on-a-chip, but there exists the potential to develop an entire body-on-a-chip model.[29]

By combining 3D printed organs, researchers are able to create a body-on-a-chip. The heart-on-a-chip model has already been used to investigate how several drugs with heart rate-based negative side effects, such as the chemotherapeutic drug doxorubicin could affect people on an individual basis.[30] The new body-on-a-chip platform includes liver, heart, lungs, and kindey-on-a-chip. The organs-on-a-chip are separately printed or constructed and then integrated together. Using this platform drug toxicity studies are performed in high throughput, lowering the cost and increasing the efficiency in the drug-discovery pipeline.[29]

The current American regulation for organ matching is centered on the national registry of organ donors after the National Organ Transplant Act was passed in 1984.[1] This act was set in place to ensure equal and honest distribution, although it has been proven insufficient due to the large demand for organ transplants. Organ printing can assist in diminishing the imbalance between supply and demand by printing patient-specific organ replacements, all of which is unfeasible without regulation. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulation of biologics, devices, and drugs in the United States.[31][32] Due to the complexity of this therapeutic approach, the location of organ printing on the spectrum has not been discerned. Studies have characterized printed organs as multi-functional combination products, meaning they fall between the biologics and devices sectors of the FDA; this leads to more extensive processes for review and approval.[31][32][33] In 2016, the FDA issued draft guidance on the Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Devices and is currently evaluating new submissions for 3D printed devices.[34] However, the technology itself is not advanced enough for the FDA to mainstream it directly.[33] Currently, the 3D printers, rather than the finished products, are the main focus in safety and efficacy evaluations in order to standardize the technology for personalized treatment approaches. From a global perspective, only South Korea and Japan's medical device regulation administrations have provided guidelines that are applicable to 3D bio-printing.[31]

There are also concerns with intellectual property and ownership. These can have a large impact on more consequential matters such as piracy, quality control for manufacturing, and unauthorized use on the black market.[32][33] These considerations are focused more on the materials and fabrication processes; they are more extensively explained in the legal aspects subsection of 3D printing.

From an ethical standpoint, there are concerns with respect to the availability of organ printing technologies, the cell sources, and public expectations. Although this approach may be less expensive than traditional surgical transplantation, there is skepticism in regards to social availability of these 3D printed organs. Contemporary research has found that there is potential social stratification for the wealthier population to have access to this therapy while the general population remains on the organ registry.[35] The cell sources mentioned previously also need to be considered. Organ printing can decrease or eliminate animal studies and trials, but also raises questions on the ethical implications of autologous and allogenic sources.[35][36] More specifically, studies have begun to examine future risks for humans undergoing experimental testing.[31] Generally, this application can give rise to social, cultural, and religious differences, making it more difficult for worldwide integration and regulation.[32] Overall, the ethical considerations of organ printing are similar to those of general ethics of bioprinting, but are extrapolated from tissue to organ. Altogether, organ printing possesses short- and long-term legal and ethical consequences that need to be considered before mainstream production can be feasible.