Literature DB >> 29374811

A novel 3D-printed hybrid simulation model for robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT).

Raphael Uwechue1, Petrut Gogalniceanu2, Nicos Kessaris2, Nick Byrne3,4, Pankaj Chandak2,5, Jonathon Olsburgh2,6, Kamran Ahmed5,6, Nizam Mamode2,5, Ioannis Loukopoulos2.   

Abstract

Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) offers key benefits for patients that have been demonstrated in several studies. A barrier to the wider uptake of RAKT is surgical skill acquisition. This is exacerbated by the challenges of modern surgery with reduced surgical training time, patient safety concerns and financial pressures. Simulation is a well-established method of developing surgical skill in a safe and controlled environment away from the patient. We have developed a 3D printed simulation model for the key step of the kidney transplant operation which is the vascular anastomosis. The model is anatomically accurate, based on the CT scans of patients and it incorporates deceased donor vascular tissue. Crucially, it was developed to be used in the robotic operating theatre with the operating robot to enhance its fidelity. It is portable and relatively inexpensive when compared with other forms of simulation such as virtual reality or animal lab training. It thus has the potential of being more accessible as a training tool for the safe acquisition of RAKT specific skills. We demonstrate this model here.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Kidney transplantation; Robotic; Simulation; Training

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29374811      PMCID: PMC6096683          DOI: 10.1007/s11701-018-0780-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) may provide enhanced patient recovery with comparable outcomes to standard open surgery. In addition, RAKT can increase access to kidney transplantation for specific end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with morbid obesity [1]. The robotic platform provides high resolution three dimensional (3D) operative views enhancing stereotactic vision and improved depth perception [2], as well as superior instrument handling with a vastly increased range of movement [3] compared to laparoscopic surgery. Consequently, RAKT is progressively expanding and showing promising results in centers of excellence [4, 5]. In robotic surgery, as in all other surgical approaches, patient safety is paramount. Skill acquisition for surgery in general, but particularly in robotic surgery, is hampered by time pressure [6], service provision and financial imperatives [7]. Simulation is a well-established method of teaching operative skills, reducing learning curves and providing transferable skills to the operating theatre [8] that improve operator performance [9]. Current simulation training is based on virtual reality simulators, in vivo animal models and cadaveric models [10]. These models remain costly and difficult to access. In addition, teams need to practice non-technical skills including the robot setup, patient positioning and interacting dynamically with the robotic system to allow surgeons to operate successfully. These skills can be improved through simulation training [11]. 3D-printing or rapid prototyping is a form of additive manufacturing technology that now has several recognized applications in the medical field including the creation of anatomical models for surgical planning, patient-specific surgical guides and custom prosthetic implants, as well as in medical education [12]. 3D printed models have now been demonstrated to show a high degree of anatomical accuracy, with implicit application as simulation training tools for the acquisition of technical skills [13] (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Prosthetic cradles

Prosthetic cradles A high-volume tertiary abdominal transplant unit in the UK planned to introduce a RAKT programme. To facilitate the new procedure, we created a hybrid simulation training model combining a 3D printed-moulage, integrated with deceased donor vessels. The purpose of the model was to optimise the surgeons training in vascular anastomoses in a timed and reproducible manner to allow objective assessment of their competencies (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Addition of deceased donor vessels to the cradles

Addition of deceased donor vessels to the cradles The key concept of this model is the use of human tissue to maximise the fidelity of the simulation exercise. The storage and use of deceased donor vessels for training purposes required institutional review and approval from the legally responsible organization under the United Kingdom Human Tissue Act 2008 legislation, which is NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), was obtained. Eligible vessels for this tissue bank were iliac arteries and veins. They were collected when unused for either liver or pancreas transplants. The prosthetic component consists of a synthetic 3D printed cradle of an anatomically accurate pelvis printed in life-size. In addition, 3D printing was used to create a kidney and a plinth to support the kidney in the correct operative position within the pelvis. Recipient anatomy that was reproduced included: pelvis vertebral column from L4 to coccyx abdominal vasculature: aorta and IVC from L4 level, iliac vessels: the complete common iliac vessels, the internal iliac vessels terminating 3 cm distal from their origin; external iliac vessels to femoral bifurcation. Donor anatomy included the body of the kidney and the renal artery and vein with an exposed length of 2 cm. Deceased donor iliac arteries and veins were obtained from the tissue bank. These were dissected and inter-positioned in the gap of the recipient’s iliac artery and vein and secured with 2.0 Vicryl ligatures. Deceased donor iliac vessels were also mounted in a similar fashion on the 3D printed kidney’s vascular stumps. The da Vinci Si robotic system was successfully docked in situ by the robotic team. Two robotic surgeons performed vascular anastomoses between the ‘hybrid donor’ renal vessels and the ‘hybrid recipient’s’ iliac vessels using 6.0 prolene sutures. Mean anastomotic procedural time was 20 min per vessel. Vascular anastomotic patency was tested by intravascular injection of saline using a hypodermic needle. A good anastomotic patency and leak-resistance was demonstrated. Room and operating field video recording was undertaken for training feedback purposes. This facilitated group discussion, reflection and feedback. The model offers several advantages. It is anatomically accurate offering geometrical fidelity and realistic spatial constraints. It utilizes deceased donor vessels to replicate reality. Deceased donor vessels also offer the advantage of being pre-screened for infection allowing it to be used in normal clinical operating theatres with the same operating robot used in clinical cases. In addition, the model can be used repeatedly, making it ideal for high-volume training, even in centers without 3D printing facilities. The use of video capture methods allows retrospective analysis of performance and structured debriefing for training, as well as revalidation purposes. Finally, the model can be deployed in situ to aid team-oriented training, as well as enhancing user immersion. Model development costs were acceptable, and the estimated reprint cost is around £1000. This represents a significant financial advantage compared with training on animal models or the cost of consumables in other forms of simulation (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3

Model in the operating theatre with the operating robot ready to use

Model in the operating theatre with the operating robot ready to use In the future, the model offers the opportunity to create bespoke patient-specific training, allowing surgeons to practice on clinically targeted operating fields. Fidelity may be further enhanced using the model in conjunction with an abdominal cavity simulator, which is already available. It has the potential to be incorporated into a future training curriculum for robotic transplant surgery (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4

Model with completed anastomoses

Model with completed anastomoses Main limitations of this concept include access to 3D printing facilities and deceased donor vessels. Another obstacle is that robotic theatre is usually available during non-office hours. In summary, the model demonstrates how 3D-printed-enhanced simulation can be used to bridge the gap between standard simulation and clinical practice in a simple and cost-effective manner. This represents a new step in hybrid RAKT simulation, combining novel 3D-printed technology with the time-tested benefits of using deceased donor tissue for high fidelity simulation training. The model is currently under validation by a multidisciplinary team of experts in robotic surgery.
  13 in total

1.  Skill transfer from virtual reality to a real laparoscopic task.

Authors:  J Torkington; S G Smith; B I Rees; A Darzi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review.

Authors:  H W R Schreuder; R Wolswijk; R P Zweemer; M P Schijven; R H M Verheijen
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2011-10-10       Impact factor: 6.531

Review 3.  Advances in Teaching and Assessing Nontechnical Skills.

Authors:  Louise Hull; Nick Sevdalis
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 2.741

4.  Surgical robotics: impact of motion scaling on task performance.

Authors:  Sunil M Prasad; Sandip M Prasad; Hersh S Maniar; Celeste Chu; Richard B Schuessler; Ralph J Damiano
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 6.113

5.  Single Center Experience With Robotic Kidney Transplantation for Recipients With BMI of 40 kg/m2 Or Greater: A Comparison With the UNOS Registry.

Authors:  Raquel Garcia-Roca; Sandra Garcia-Aroz; Ivo Tzvetanov; Hoonbae Jeon; Jose Oberholzer; Enrico Benedetti
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.939

6.  A randomised, controlled trial evaluating a low cost, 3D-printed bronchoscopy simulator.

Authors:  T H Pedersen; J Gysin; A Wegmann; M Osswald; S R Ott; L Theiler; R Greif
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 6.955

7.  Emerging role of robotics in urology.

Authors:  Rajeev Kumar; Ashok K Hemal
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.407

Review 8.  Training for the future NHS: training junior doctors in the United Kingdom within the 48-hour European working time directive.

Authors:  Shreelatta T Datta; Sally J Davies
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 2.463

Review 9.  3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Philip Tack; Jan Victor; Paul Gemmel; Lieven Annemans
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 2.819

10.  Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Christian R Larsen; Jette L Soerensen; Teodor P Grantcharov; Torur Dalsgaard; Lars Schouenborg; Christian Ottosen; Torben V Schroeder; Bent S Ottesen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-05-14
View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Role of 3D printing in surgical education for robotic urology procedures.

Authors:  Ahmed E Ghazi; Brett A Teplitz
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-04

Review 2.  Review of the effect of 3D medical printing and virtual reality on urology training with ‘MedTRain3DModsim’ Erasmus + European Union Project

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

3.  Efficacy and safety of 3D printing-assisted percutaneous nephrolithotomy in complex renal calculi.

Authors:  Dong Cui; Fengqi Yan; JiangPu Yi; Dali He; Yichen Zhang; Zekai Zhang; Yuntao Chen; Yong Jiao; Bo Zhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  From digital world to real life: a robotic approach to the esophagogastric junction with a 3D printed model.

Authors:  Luigi Marano; Alessandro Ricci; Vinno Savelli; Luigi Verre; Luca Di Renzo; Elia Biccari; Giacomo Costantini; Daniele Marrelli; Franco Roviello
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2019-10-25       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 5.  3D Printing of Physical Organ Models: Recent Developments and Challenges.

Authors:  Zhongboyu Jin; Yuanrong Li; Kang Yu; Linxiang Liu; Jianzhong Fu; Xinhua Yao; Aiguo Zhang; Yong He
Journal:  Adv Sci (Weinh)       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 16.806

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.