Francesco Porpiglia1, Riccardo Bertolo2, Enrico Checcucci2, Daniele Amparore2, Riccardo Autorino3, Prokar Dasgupta4, Peter Wiklund5, Ashutosh Tewari6, Evangelos Liatsikos7, Cristian Fiori2. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, Orbassano, 10043, Turin, Italy. porpiglia@libero.it. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, Orbassano, 10043, Turin, Italy. 3. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. 4. Guy's Hospital, Kings College London, Urology, London, UK. 5. Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Urology, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the face and content validity of 3D virtual-rendered printed models used before robot-assisted prostate cancer and nephron-sparing surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent live surgery during an international urological meeting organized in January 2017 were enrolled. Those with organ-confined prostate cancer underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patients with a single renal tumor underwent minimally invasive nephron-sparing surgery. High-resolution (HR) imaging was obtained for all patients. Those with kidney tumors received contrast-enhanced CT scan with angiography; those with prostate cancer underwent mp-MRI. Images in DICOM format were processed by dedicated software. The first step was the rendering of a 3D virtual model. The models were then printed. They were presented during the live surgery of the urological meeting. All the participants and the operated patients were asked to fill a questionnaire about their opinion expressed in Likert scale (1-10) about the use and application of the 3D printed models. RESULTS: 18 patients were enrolled, including 8 undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and 10 undergoing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. For each patient, a virtual 3D printed model was created. The attendants rated the utility of printed models in surgical planning, anatomical representation and the role of technology in surgical training as 8/10, 10/10 and 9/10, respectively. All patients reported favorable feedbacks (from 9 to 10/10) about the use of the technology during the case discussion with the surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, 3D printing technology has been perceived as a useful tool for the purpose of surgical planning, physician education/training and patient counseling. Further researches are expected to increase the level of evidence.
PURPOSE: To test the face and content validity of 3D virtual-rendered printed models used before robot-assisted prostate cancer and nephron-sparing surgery. METHODS:Patients who underwent live surgery during an international urological meeting organized in January 2017 were enrolled. Those with organ-confined prostate cancer underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patients with a single renal tumor underwent minimally invasive nephron-sparing surgery. High-resolution (HR) imaging was obtained for all patients. Those with kidney tumors received contrast-enhanced CT scan with angiography; those with prostate cancer underwent mp-MRI. Images in DICOM format were processed by dedicated software. The first step was the rendering of a 3D virtual model. The models were then printed. They were presented during the live surgery of the urological meeting. All the participants and the operated patients were asked to fill a questionnaire about their opinion expressed in Likert scale (1-10) about the use and application of the 3D printed models. RESULTS: 18 patients were enrolled, including 8 undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and 10 undergoing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. For each patient, a virtual 3D printed model was created. The attendants rated the utility of printed models in surgical planning, anatomical representation and the role of technology in surgical training as 8/10, 10/10 and 9/10, respectively. All patients reported favorable feedbacks (from 9 to 10/10) about the use of the technology during the case discussion with the surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, 3D printing technology has been perceived as a useful tool for the purpose of surgical planning, physician education/training and patient counseling. Further researches are expected to increase the level of evidence.
Authors: Jonas Schiffmann; Alexander Haese; Katharina Boehm; Georg Salomon; Thomas Steuber; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Minerva Urol Nefrol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 3.720
Authors: Friedrich-Carl von Rundstedt; Jason M Scovell; Smriti Agrawal; Jacques Zaneveld; Richard E Link Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-12-10 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Margaret Knoedler; Allison H Feibus; Andrew Lange; Michael M Maddox; Elisa Ledet; Raju Thomas; Jonathan L Silberstein Journal: Urology Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: B S Spottiswoode; D J van den Heever; Y Chang; S Engelhardt; S Du Plessis; F Nicolls; H B Hartzenberg; A Gretschel Journal: Stereotact Funct Neurosurg Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 1.875
Authors: Tobias Maurer; Gregor Weirich; Margret Schottelius; Martina Weineisen; Benjamin Frisch; Asli Okur; Hubert Kübler; Mark Thalgott; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Jürgen E Gschwend; Matthias Eiber Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Arjun D Koch; Sonja N Buzink; Jeroen Heemskerk; Sanne M B I Botden; Roeland Veenendaal; Jack J Jakimowicz; Erik J Schoon Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 4.584