Todd G Manning1,2, Jonathan S O'Brien3,4, Daniel Christidis3,4, Marlon Perera3,4,5, Jasamine Coles-Black3,6, Jason Chuen3,6, Damien M Bolton3, Nathan Lawrentschuk3,7,8. 1. Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Studley Road Heidelberg, Melbourne, VIC, 3088, Australia. doctor.tmanning@gmail.com. 2. The Young Urology Researchers Organisation (YURO), Melbourne, Australia. doctor.tmanning@gmail.com. 3. Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Studley Road Heidelberg, Melbourne, VIC, 3088, Australia. 4. The Young Urology Researchers Organisation (YURO), Melbourne, Australia. 5. Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 6. Austin Health 3D Medical Printing Laboratory, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 8. Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Three-dimensional (3D) printing was invented in 1983 but has only just begun to influence medicine and surgery. Conversion of digital images into physical models demonstrates promise to revolutionize multiple domains of surgery. In the field of uro-oncology, researchers and clinicians have recognized the potential of this technology and are working towards making it an integral part of urological practice. We review current literature regarding 3D printing and other 3D technology in the field of urology. METHOD: A comprehensive assessment of contemporary literature was performed according to a modified PRISMA analysis for the purposes of this narrative review article. Medical databases that were searched included: Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Articles assessed were limited only to English-language peer-reviewed articles published between 1980 and 2017. The search terms used were "3D", "3-dimensional", "printing", "printing technology", "urology", "surgery". Acceptable articles were reviewed and incorporated for their merit and relevance with preference given for articles with high impact, original research and recent advances. RESULTS: Thirty-five publications were included in final analysis and discussion. CONCLUSIONS: The area of 3D printing in Urology shows promising results, but further research is required and cost reduction must occur before clinicians fully embrace its use. As costs continue to decline and diversity of materials continues to expand, research and clinical utilization will increase. Recent advances have demonstrated the potential of this technology in the realms of education and surgical optimization. The generation of personalized organs using 3D printing scaffolding remains the 'holy grail' of this technology.
PURPOSE: Three-dimensional (3D) printing was invented in 1983 but has only just begun to influence medicine and surgery. Conversion of digital images into physical models demonstrates promise to revolutionize multiple domains of surgery. In the field of uro-oncology, researchers and clinicians have recognized the potential of this technology and are working towards making it an integral part of urological practice. We review current literature regarding 3D printing and other 3D technology in the field of urology. METHOD: A comprehensive assessment of contemporary literature was performed according to a modified PRISMA analysis for the purposes of this narrative review article. Medical databases that were searched included: Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Articles assessed were limited only to English-language peer-reviewed articles published between 1980 and 2017. The search terms used were "3D", "3-dimensional", "printing", "printing technology", "urology", "surgery". Acceptable articles were reviewed and incorporated for their merit and relevance with preference given for articles with high impact, original research and recent advances. RESULTS: Thirty-five publications were included in final analysis and discussion. CONCLUSIONS: The area of 3D printing in Urology shows promising results, but further research is required and cost reduction must occur before clinicians fully embrace its use. As costs continue to decline and diversity of materials continues to expand, research and clinical utilization will increase. Recent advances have demonstrated the potential of this technology in the realms of education and surgical optimization. The generation of personalized organs using 3D printing scaffolding remains the 'holy grail' of this technology.
Keywords:
3-Dimensional; 3D; 3D printing; 3D reconstruction; Robotic surgery; Surgery; Urology
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: Dimitris Mitsouras; Peter Liacouras; Amir Imanzadeh; Andreas A Giannopoulos; Tianrun Cai; Kanako K Kumamaru; Elizabeth George; Nicole Wake; Edward J Caterson; Bohdan Pomahac; Vincent B Ho; Gerald T Grant; Frank J Rybicki Journal: Radiographics Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
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: İlkan Tatar; Emre Huri; İlker Selçuk; Young Lee Moon; Alberto Paoluzzi; Andreas Skolarikos Journal: Turk J Med Sci Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 0.973
Authors: Anna Ridgers; Jasun Li; Jasamine Coles-Black; Michael Jiang; Gordon Chen; Jason Chuen; Christine F McDonald; Graham Hepworth; Daniel P Steinfort; Louis B Irving; Peter Wallbridge; Barton R Jennings; Phan Nguyen; Tracy L Leong Journal: ATS Sch Date: 2021-11-22