Stefania Marconi1, Luigi Pugliese2,3, Marta Botti4, Andrea Peri5, Emma Cavazzi5, Saverio Latteri6, Ferdinando Auricchio1, Andrea Pietrabissa5. 1. Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy. 2. Department of Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy. luipugliese@gmail.com. 3. Unit of General Surgery 2, University of Pavia, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico San Matteo, Piazzale Golgi, 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy. luipugliese@gmail.com. 4. School of Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy. 5. Department of Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy. 6. General Surgery Unit, Ospedale Cannizzaro, Catania, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a preliminary experience, we claimed the potential value of 3D printing technology for pre-operative counseling and surgical planning. However, no objective analysis has ever assessed its additional benefit in transferring anatomical information from radiology to final users. We decided to validate the pre-operative use of 3D-printed anatomical models in patients with solid organs' diseases as a new tool to deliver morphological information. METHODS: Fifteen patients scheduled for laparoscopic splenectomy, nephrectomy, or pancreatectomy were selected and, for each, a full-size 3D virtual anatomical object was reconstructed from a contrast-enhanced MDCT (Multiple Detector Computed Tomography) and then prototyped using a 3D printer. After having carefully evaluated-in a random sequence-conventional contrast MDCT scans, virtual 3D reconstructions on a flat monitor, and 3D-printed models of the same anatomy for each selected case, thirty subjects with different expertise in radiological imaging (10 medical students, 10 surgeons and 10 radiologists) were administered a multiple-item questionnaire. Crucial issues for the anatomical understanding and the pre-operative planning of the scheduled procedure were addressed. RESULTS: The visual and tactile inspection of 3D models allowed the best anatomical understanding, with faster and clearer comprehension of the surgical anatomy. As expected, less experienced medical students perceived the highest benefit (53.9% ± 4.14 of correct answers with 3D-printed models, compared to 53.4 % ± 4.6 with virtual models and 45.5% ± 4.6 with MDCT), followed by surgeons and radiologists. The average time spent by participants in 3D model assessing was shorter (60.67 ± 25.5 s) than the one of the corresponding virtual 3D reconstruction (70.8 ± 28.18 s) or conventional MDCT scan (127.04 ± 35.91 s). CONCLUSIONS: 3D-printed models help to transfer complex anatomical information to clinicians, resulting useful in the pre-operative planning, for intra-operative navigation and for surgical training purposes.
BACKGROUND: In a preliminary experience, we claimed the potential value of 3D printing technology for pre-operative counseling and surgical planning. However, no objective analysis has ever assessed its additional benefit in transferring anatomical information from radiology to final users. We decided to validate the pre-operative use of 3D-printed anatomical models in patients with solid organs' diseases as a new tool to deliver morphological information. METHODS: Fifteen patients scheduled for laparoscopic splenectomy, nephrectomy, or pancreatectomy were selected and, for each, a full-size 3D virtual anatomical object was reconstructed from a contrast-enhanced MDCT (Multiple Detector Computed Tomography) and then prototyped using a 3D printer. After having carefully evaluated-in a random sequence-conventional contrast MDCT scans, virtual 3D reconstructions on a flat monitor, and 3D-printed models of the same anatomy for each selected case, thirty subjects with different expertise in radiological imaging (10 medical students, 10 surgeons and 10 radiologists) were administered a multiple-item questionnaire. Crucial issues for the anatomical understanding and the pre-operative planning of the scheduled procedure were addressed. RESULTS: The visual and tactile inspection of 3D models allowed the best anatomical understanding, with faster and clearer comprehension of the surgical anatomy. As expected, less experienced medical students perceived the highest benefit (53.9% ± 4.14 of correct answers with 3D-printed models, compared to 53.4 % ± 4.6 with virtual models and 45.5% ± 4.6 with MDCT), followed by surgeons and radiologists. The average time spent by participants in 3D model assessing was shorter (60.67 ± 25.5 s) than the one of the corresponding virtual 3D reconstruction (70.8 ± 28.18 s) or conventional MDCT scan (127.04 ± 35.91 s). CONCLUSIONS: 3D-printed models help to transfer complex anatomical information to clinicians, resulting useful in the pre-operative planning, for intra-operative navigation and for surgical training purposes.
Authors: F Rengier; A Mehndiratta; H von Tengg-Kobligk; C M Zechmann; R Unterhinninghofen; H-U Kauczor; F L Giesel Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2010-05-15 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Nicolas Martelli; Carole Serrano; Hélène van den Brink; Judith Pineau; Patrice Prognon; Isabelle Borget; Salma El Batti Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-01-30 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Paul A Yushkevich; Joseph Piven; Heather Cody Hazlett; Rachel Gimpel Smith; Sean Ho; James C Gee; Guido Gerig Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Nizar N Zein; Ibrahim A Hanouneh; Paul D Bishop; Maggie Samaan; Bijan Eghtesad; Cristiano Quintini; Charles Miller; Lisa Yerian; Ryan Klatte Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2013-10-21 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Timothy M Rankin; Blair A Wormer; John D Miller; Nicholas A Giovinco; Salam Al Kassis; David G Armstrong Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 3.039