Background Commercial neuroendovascular simulation systems and patient-specific flow models can be costly or technically complex. We developed an openly documented model spanning peripheral access to intracranial targets using consumer-grade fused-deposition modeling. Method An idealized, predominantly planar vascular pathway was divided into three sections, printed in polylactic acid, and bonded with cyanoacrylate. Printed Luer-compatible connectors, silicone tubing, a peristaltic pump, water, and an open reservoir formed a recirculating circuit. Two operators used surplus 5-French and 6-French guide catheters, a distal access catheter, microcatheters, microguidewires, and syringes for descriptive passage checks. Statistics This single-build technical feasibility study used descriptive reporting only. No inferential statistical testing was performed. Results The three sections required approximately 151 h of printing and had a combined slicer-reported mass of approximately 780 g. Reported direct component and consumable cost was under US $100, excluding printer acquisition, labor, electricity, reusable accessories, and clinical devices. Water recirculated with residual seepage at selected interfaces. Guide and distal access catheters traversed the represented access, aortic, carotid, and vertebral pathways; microcatheters and guidewires reached the represented circle of Willis and selected distal branches. Discussion Consumer fabrication, simplified geometry, standard interfaces, and open files reduced cost and manufacturing complexity. The planar anatomy, rigid material, uncharacterized flow, and absence of formal educational or mechanical validation limit realism and intended use. Conclusion This open-source model establishes single-build fabrication, recirculation, and gross catheter-passage feasibility. It is a low-cost bench platform for introductory familiarization and engineering iteration, not an anatomically, hemodynamically, mechanically, or educationally validated simulator.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Porwal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: