Table 1.

Measurement's accuracy with 3D printed models.

Authors	Case	Comparison	Software	Structure	Measure (model × structure × operator)	Pearson correlation	Mean diff (mm)	Analysis
Lau et al. (13)	1	3D vs. CT	Mimics	VSD/Aorta/PB	1 × 3 × 2	0.99	0.23	Pearson
Valverde et al. (14)	20	3D vs. CT	Itk-snap	10 vascular diameters	320	0.99	0.27	Pearson
Greil et al. (15)	1	3D vs. mortem	Visualization toolkit	Distances	unclear		0.27	Interactive closest point
Ma et al. (16)	35	3D vs. vivo	Philips EBW	VSD	35 × 1 × 1		No diff (t = 0.83, P = 0.412 > 0.05)	t
Olejnik et al. (17)	8	3 D vs. vivo	3D slicer	Vascular diameters and distance	8 × 3 × 1		0.13 ± 0.26	Bland-Altman
		3D vs. dicom			8 × 5 × 1		0.19 ± 0.38
Valverde et al. (18)	1	3D vs. MRI	Ayra	Aorta diameters	2 × 8 × 2		0.18 ± 0.38	Pearson and Bland-Altman
		3D vs. X ray			2 × 8 × 2		0.55 ± 0.46
		Global					0.36 ± 0.45
Zhao et al. (19)	8	3D vs. CT	Mimics	VSD/Ao arch/PA	8 × 3 × 1	0.977		Pearson
Olivieri et al. (20)	9	3D vs. echo	Mimics	VSD and perivalvar leak	22	0.988	0.4 ± 0.9; t : NS	Pearson Bland-Altman and t
Ngan et al. (21)	6	3D vs. CT	Mimics	MAPCA diameters	6 × 1 × 1		0.26–0.85	t
							97% accuracy feeling
Farooqi et al. (22)	19	3DM vs. 3DBP	Mimics	GA/IVC/SVC/PV	19 × 5 × 4 × 2		Blood pool > myocardium	Anova
Farooqi et al. (23)	6	3D vs. MR	Mimics	AA/VSD/RVLA	6 × 3 × 1	0.99		Pearson
						AA 0.88 VSD 0.74 RV 0.99

CT, computed tomography; MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging; 3DM, 3D myocardium; 3DBP, 3D bloodpool; VSD, ventricular septal defect; PB, pulmonary branch; Ao Arch, aortic arch; MAPCA, major aortopulmonary collateral artery; SVC, superior vena cava; IVC, inferior vena cava; Ao, Aorta; PA, pulmonary artery; PV, pulmonary valve; AA, aortic annulus; RVLA, right ventricle long axis.