There is a growing demand for customised,biocompatible,and sterilisable components in the medical busi-ness.3D Printing is a disruptive technology for healthcare and provides significant research and development avenues.Simple 3D printing service gives patients low-cost individualised prostheses,implants,and gadgets,en-abling surgeons to operate more effectively with customised equipment and models;and assisting medical device manufacturers in developing new and faster goods.3D printed tissue pieces can overcome various challenges and may eventually allow medication companies to streamline research and development.In the long run,it may also assist in lowering prices and making medicines more accessible and effective for everybody.There is a growing corpus of research on the advantages of employing 3D printed anatomic models in teaching and training.The capacity to 3D printing individual anatomical diseases for practical learning is one of the funda-mental contrasts between utilising 3D and regular anatomical models.3D printing is very appealing for producing patient-specific implants.This literature review-based paper explores the role of 3D printing and 3D bioprinting in healthcare.It briefs the need and progressive steps for implementing 3D printing in healthcare and presented various facilities and enablers of 3D printing for the healthcare sector.Finally,this paper identifies and discusses the significant applications of 3D printing for healthcare research and development.3D printing services can be deployed to easily construct complex geometries in plastic or metal with good precision.This results in improved prototypes,lower costs,and lower part processing times.They can now physically create with natural materials,previously unattainable with prior technologies.Every hospital should have 3D printers in the future,allowing new organs/parts to be developed in-house.

INTRODUCTIONWe conducted a single-centre, prospective randomised clinical trial to investigate the analgesic efficacy of transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy.

METHODSPatients undergoing urgent laparoscopic appendicectomy under general anaesthesia alone (control group) and general anaesthesia supplemented by TAP block (TAP intervention group) were compared. All patients received a multimodal analgesia regime, which included postoperative morphine via a patient-controlled analgesia device. The primary endpoints were morphine consumption at 12 hours and 24 hours postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included pain scores, incidence of nausea and vomiting, and time to hospital discharge. A total of 58 patients were recruited, with 29 patients in each group.

RESULTSMean postoperative morphine consumption at 12 hours (control group: 11.45 ± 7.64 mg, TAP intervention group: 9.79 ± 8.09 mg; p = 0.4264) and 24 hours (control group: 13.38 ± 8.72 mg, TAP intervention group: 11.31 ± 8.66 mg; p = 0.3686) for the control and TAP intervention groups were not statistically different. Secondary outcomes were also not different between the two groups. Length of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit was significantly shorter for the TAP intervention group, with a trend toward faster hospital discharge being observed.

CONCLUSIONTAP block, a regional anaesthetic procedure performed immediately prior to skin incision for laparoscopic appendicectomy, did not significantly improve postoperative analgesia outcomes.