Enrico Checcucci1, Daniele Amparore1, Cristian Fiori1, Matteo Manfredi1, Morra Ivano1, Michele Di Dio2, Gabriel Niculescu1, Federico Piramide1, Giovanni Cattaneo1, Pietro Piazzolla3, Giovanni Enrico Cacciamani4,5, Riccardo Autorino6, Francesco Porpiglia7. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10,, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Annunziata Hospital, Cosenza, Italy. 3. Department of Management and Production Engineer, Polytechnic University of Turin, Turin, Italy. 4. USC Urology Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Uro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Working Party of the European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands. 6. Division of Urology, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA. 7. Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10,, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy. porpiglia@libero.it.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Despite the current era of precision surgery in robotics, an unmet need still remains for optimal surgical planning and navigation for most genitourinary diseases. 3D virtual reconstruction of 2D cross-sectional imaging has been increasingly adopted to help surgeons better understand the surgical anatomy. OBJECTIVES: To provide a short overview of the most recent evidence on current applications of 3D imaging in robotic urologic surgery. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A non-systematic review of the literature was performed. Medline, PubMed, the Cochrane Database and Embase were screened for studies regarding the use of 3D models in robotic urology. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: 3D reconstruction technology creates 3D virtual and printed models that first appeared in urology to aid surgical planning and intraoperative navigation, especially in the treatment of oncological diseases of the prostate and kidneys. The latest revolution in the field involves models overlapping onto the real anatomy and performing augmented reality procedures. CONCLUSION: 3D virtual/printing technology has entered daily practice in some tertiary centres, especially for the management of urological tumours. The 3D models can be virtual or printed, and can help the surgeon in surgical planning, physician education and training, and patient counselling. Moreover, integration of robotic platforms with the 3D models and the possibility of performing augmented reality surgeries increase the surgeon's confidence with the pathology, with potential benefits in precision and tailoring of the procedures.
CONTEXT: Despite the current era of precision surgery in robotics, an unmet need still remains for optimal surgical planning and navigation for most genitourinary diseases. 3D virtual reconstruction of 2D cross-sectional imaging has been increasingly adopted to help surgeons better understand the surgical anatomy. OBJECTIVES: To provide a short overview of the most recent evidence on current applications of 3D imaging in robotic urologic surgery. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A non-systematic review of the literature was performed. Medline, PubMed, the Cochrane Database and Embase were screened for studies regarding the use of 3D models in robotic urology. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: 3D reconstruction technology creates 3D virtual and printed models that first appeared in urology to aid surgical planning and intraoperative navigation, especially in the treatment of oncological diseases of the prostate and kidneys. The latest revolution in the field involves models overlapping onto the real anatomy and performing augmented reality procedures. CONCLUSION: 3D virtual/printing technology has entered daily practice in some tertiary centres, especially for the management of urological tumours. The 3D models can be virtual or printed, and can help the surgeon in surgical planning, physician education and training, and patient counselling. Moreover, integration of robotic platforms with the 3D models and the possibility of performing augmented reality surgeries increase the surgeon's confidence with the pathology, with potential benefits in precision and tailoring of the procedures.
Authors: R Autorino; F Porpiglia; P Dasgupta; J Rassweiler; J W Catto; L J Hampton; E Lima; V Mirone; I H Derweesh; F M J Debruyne Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: E R Hyde; L U Berger; N Ramachandran; A Hughes-Hallett; N P Pavithran; M G B Tran; S Ourselin; A Bex; F H Mumtaz Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Clément Michiels; Zine-Eddine Khene; Thomas Prudhomme; Astrid Boulenger de Hauteclocque; François H Cornelis; Mélanie Percot; Hélène Simeon; Laure Dupitout; Henri Bensadoun; Grégoire Capon; Eric Alezra; Vincent Estrade; Franck Bladou; Grégoire Robert; Jean-Marie Ferriere; Nicolas Grenier; Nicolas Doumerc; Karim Bensalah; Jean-Christophe Bernhard Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Benedikt Hoeh; Mike Wenzel; Lukas Hohenhorst; Jens Köllermann; Markus Graefen; Alexander Haese; Derya Tilki; Jochen Walz; Marina Kosiba; Andreas Becker; Severine Banek; Luis A Kluth; Philipp Mandel; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Felix K H Chun; Felix Preisser Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-02-22