Value of 3D printing technology combined with indocyanine green fluorescent navigation in complex laparoscopic hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has achieved rapid progress over the last decade. However, it is still challenging to apply laparoscopy to lesions located in segments I, VII, VIII, and IVa and the hepatic hilar region due to difficulty operating around complex anatomical structures. In this study, we applied three-dimensional printing (3DP) and indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging technology to complex laparoscopic hepatectomy (CLH) to explore the effects and value of the modified procedure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2019 to January 2021, 54 patients with complex hepatobiliary diseases underwent LH at our center. Clinical data were collected from these patients and retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 30 patients underwent CLH using the conventional approach, whereas 24 cases received CLH with 3DP technology and ICG fluorescent navigation. Preoperative data were compared between the two groups. In the 3DP group, we modified the surgical strategy of four patients (4/24, 16.7%) due to real-time intraoperative navigation with 3DP and ICG fluorescent imaging technology. We did not modify the surgical strategy for any patient in the non-3DP group (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the non-3DP and 3DP groups regarding operating time (297.7±104.1 min vs. 328.8±110.9 min, P = 0.15), estimated blood loss (400±263.8 ml vs. 345.8±356.1 ml, P = 0.52), rate of conversion to laparotomy (3/30 vs. 2/24, P = 0.79), or pathological outcomes including the incidence of microscopical R0 margins (28/30 vs. 24/24, P = 0.57). Additionally, there were no significant differences in postoperative complications or recovery conditions between the two groups. No instances of 30- or 90-day mortality were observed.
CONCLUSION: The optimal surgical strategy for CLH can be chosen with the help of 3DP technology and ICG fluorescent navigation. This modified procedure is both safe and effective, but without improvement of intraoperative and short-term outcomes.

Introduction

With the dramatic development of the laparoscopic technique, laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has become more widely adopted for the treatment of hepatic lesions. This method boasts many great advantages, such as enlarged surgical field, minimal invasion, quick recovery, and good prognosis [1]. However, it is still challenging to use laparoscopy to treat hepatolithiasis, type III hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCA), and lesions located in segments I, VII, VIII, and IVa due to the complexity of anatomical structures, difficult exposure, limited surgical approach, and poor surgical field. It is also difficult to achieve anatomical resection (AR) and guarantee R0 resection in complex laparoscopic hepatectomy (CLH) [2, 3]. Furthermore, the rate of conversion from CLH to laparotomy may be as high as 40% [4]. Aside from the skill of laparoscopic technique, the main reasons for failed CLH include poor preoperative evaluation and limited real-time intraoperative navigation [5]. Over the last decade, three-dimensional (3D) virtual reconstruction technology and indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging have been applied to preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation with good outcomes [6, 7]. However, virtual preoperative imaging results continue to be incorrectly interpreted, especially in cases involving complex hepatobiliary diseases [8]. This results in inappropriate surgical procedures being chosen, causing severe perioperative complications. Three-dimensional printing (3DP) technology may be a better tool to help choose the optimal surgical strategy and facilitate CLH [9, 10]. However, this technique has rarely been used in combination with LH due to the high cost and lengthy time required for producing a reliable liver model [11]. In this study, we introduce a method to increase the efficiency and reduce the cost of 3DP liver model creation, while still maintaining high quality. In combination with ICG fluorescent navigation, our modified 3DP models were applied to CLH, and their effects and value explored.

Materials and methods

Patient cohort and data collection

From January 2019 to January 2021, 54 patients with complex hepatobiliary lesions were enrolled at our center, of which 30 patients underwent CLH using a conventional approach (non-3DP group) and 24 patients underwent CLH with 3DP technology and ICG fluorescent navigation (3DP group). Clinical data were collected, compared, and retrospectively analyzed. Patients were included in this study if they (1) had preoperative data showing lesions located in segments VII, VIII, IVa, or the caudate lobe, or were diagnosed with type III HCA; (2) did not receive chemotherapy before hospitalization; (3) had proper liver reserve function including Child-Pugh class A status, an ICG 15-minute retention rate < 10%, and a future liver remnant ratio > 40%; (4) had no laparoscopic contraindications after preoperative imaging examination and general condition assessment; and (5) had complete clinical and postoperative follow-up data. Patients were excluded from this study if (1) extensive metastasis or impossible radical resection was found during the operation or (2) they couldn’t tolerate being under the laparoscope. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital (2021QT073). Due to the retrospective nature of this study, patient consent for inclusion was waived.

Preoperative management

Ultrasonography, enhanced computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were routinely performed to evaluate aspects of resectability, including tumor size as well as hepatic segment and surrounding blood vessel involvement. Hepatic functional reserve was assessed using the Child-Pugh classification system, ICG 15-minute retention rate (calculated using the DDG-3300K [Pulse Dye Densito-Graph Analyzer, Nihon Kohde, Japan] after ICG [0.5mg/kg] was injected via the peripheral vein), and future liver remnant ratio (calculated by CT scan). CT and MRI data were collected to produce 3DP liver models in the 3DP group.

3DP liver model production

Hepatic segmentation and 3D virtual reconstruction were performed using E3D digital medical modeling software V17.06 (Central and Southern E3D Digital Medical and Virtual Reality Research Center, China) based on each patient’s CT Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data (Fig 1A). Then, the locations of lesions, as well as the surrounding complex vessels and bile ducts, were analyzed and designed using the open-source slicing software Cura 4.4.1 (Ulitmaker, USA). This software generated G-codes that were identified by SLA (Stereo Lithography Appearance) (SL600, Suzhou ZhongRuiZhiChuang 3D Technology Co., LTD., China) to print liver models. The models were made of photosensitive resin material (ZR680, Suzhou ZhongRuiZhiChuang 3D Technology Co., LTD., China) with a bending strength of 66–73 MPa and fracture elongation rate of 10–15%. Photosensitive liquid materials, which were put in a cylinder after previous deaeration, were solidified layer-by-layer using an ultraviolet control system. We only printed the lesions with blood vessels, bile ducts, and their branches (diameter > 2 mm), excluding any spare liver parenchyma. The model was fully hollow with apertures 45–50 mm in diameter. The finalized 3DP liver model was successfully made after curing under a UV mercury lamp and coloring in the post-processing box (Fig 1B).

Fig 1

3D virtual reconstruction based on CT data was shown on 1A, A 3D printing liver model modified by hollowed-out designation was shown on 1B. (T indicates tumor, dark blue vessels represent hepatic veins, light blue vessels represent portal veins, white plate full with holes represents liver surface).

Surgical procedure

The surgical procedure varied according to the location of the lesion and its surrounding vessels. For intrahepatic lesions at specific sites, we performed laparoscopic anatomic resection of the hepatic segments; for those classified as type III HCA, we conducted segmented laparoscopic hepatectomy of the extrahepatic bile ducts along with lymph node dissection. The key steps of conventional CLH were performed using the following principles and procedures: (1) the pneumoperitoneum was established with carbon dioxide pressure at 12–15 mmHg, and a total of five trocars were posited according to various hepatectomies; (2) perihepatic ligaments were dissected subsequent to the placement of the first porta blocking band, and intraoperative ultrasound was routinely performed to evaluate potential intrahepatic metastasis and the status of important vessels; (3) after the hepatic pedicle of the segment or lobe to be resected was identified, occluded, and divided, liver parenchyma dissection was performed using an ultrasonic knife and CUSA, where the pringle maneuver was used during hepatectomy if necessary; (4) the segments or lobes were completely mobilized and transected in an en bloc manner; and (5) an abdominal drainage tube was inserted after surgery. In the 3DP group, a patient-specific liver model was brought into the operating room during surgery to help locate and identify important vessels and the range of lesions. ICG (2.5 mg) was injected intravenously after the inflow of the removing segment or lobe was occluded. Intrahepatic ducts were dissected through intraoperative real-time navigation of the 3DP model and ICG fluorescent staining by the fluorescent laparoscope (Figs 2–4). The residual intrahepatic ducts were reconfirmed by considering the 3DP model after operation (Fig 5).

Fig 2

A modified 3D printing liver model of hilar cholangiocarcinoma was applied in intraoperative navigation.

(RHA: right hepatic artery, PHA: proper hepatic artery, LPV: left portal vein, MHV: middle hepatic vein, MHV-V4: The venous reflux of hepatic segment 4 to MHV).

Fig 4

ICG fluorescent staining was applied to intraoperative navigation.

A: The mark-line (yellow arrows) between the removing liver and the preserving liver. B: Visual contrast in the dissection of liver parenchyma were shown clearly (The green plan B was the preserving side, the other plan A was the removing side).

Fig 5

The actual intrahepatic ducts of surgical field were reconfirmed consistently with the liver model’s after operation.

(dP5:the dorsal portal vein of segment 5, vP5:the ventral portal vein of segment 5,vB5: the ventral bile duct of segment 5, dB5: the dorsalbile duct of segment 5, B8: thebile duct of segment 8, RHV: right hepatic vein, RHV-V5: The venous reflux of hepatic segment 5 to RHV,RHV-V6: The venous reflux of hepatic segment 6 to RHV).

Postoperative treatment

Postoperative total parenteral nutrition (TPN) was administered before restoring oral intake. Patients received traditional liver-protecting therapy and typically returned to an oral diet 2–3 days after operation. The results of enhanced CT were examined 3–5 days after operation to evaluate intra-abdominal condition. Severe complications were defined as those of Clavien–Dindo grade III or IV [12]. Bile leakage was evaluated and graded according to the definitions of the International Study Group for Liver Surgery (ISGLS) [13].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 23.0 statistical software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). The Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests were used to evaluate differences between groups for categorical variables, and the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan–Meier method and the log-rank test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Preoperative characteristics

The mean age was 57.9±12.5 years in the non-3DP group and 55.5±12.5 years in the 3DP group (P = 0.49). There were 19 male and 11 female patients in the non-3DP group, versus 17 male and seven female patients in the 3DP group (P = 0.56). BMI did not significantly differ between the non-3DP and 3DP groups (23.0±3.2 vs. 24.4±4.0, respectively; P = 0.16). The counts of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), hepatolithiasis, and HCA were 19, 7, and 4 in the non-3DP group and 13, 7, and 4 in the 3DP group (P = 0.69), respectively. The counts of lesions located in the right anterior lobe, right posterior lobe, middle lobe, right liver, and hepatic hilar region were 7, 7, 3, 9, and 4 in the non-3DP group and 6, 5, 3, 6, and 4 in the 3DP group (P = 0.80), respectively. Overall, preoperative data were relatively similar between the two groups (Table 1). The 3DP models were made at a 1:1 size ratio of the actual liver. The mean production time and cost of the models were 56.8 hours and $104.40 USD, respectively.

Table 1

Demographics and preoperative characteristics of the non-3DP and 3DP groups.

Variables	Non-3DP(n = 30)	3DP(n = 24)	P value
Background characteristics
Age (years)	57.9±12.5	55.5±12.5	0.49
Gender (M/F)	19/11	17/7	0.56
BMI (kg/m2)	23.0±3.2	24.4±4.0	0.16
ASA classification (I/II)	17/13	13/11	0.93
HBsAg (+/-)	21/9	12/12	0.22
Liver cirrhosis (yes/no)	9/21	8/16	0.79
Child-Pugh class (A/B)	30/0	24/0
ICGR15 (%)	6.4±1.7	5.8±2.2	0.14
Liver function test
Total bilirubin (umol/L)	21.3±18.7	19.6±11.8	0.33
Albumin (g/L)	37.5±3.7	38.8±5.1	0.14
ALT (U/L)	22.4±10.3	19.6±9.4	0.15
Preoperative diagnosis			0.80
Hepatocellular carcinoma	19	13
Hepatolithiasis	7	7
Hilar cholangiocarcinoma	4	4
Lesion location			0.99
Right anterior lobe	7	6
Right posterior lobe	7	5
Middle lobe	3	3
Right liver	9	6
Hepatic hilar region	4	4

3DP: 3-dimensional printing; M: male; F: female; BMI: body mass index; ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists; HBsAg: Hepatitis B surface antigen; ICG R15: indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min; ALT: alanine aminotransferase.

Intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes

The 3DP models were consistent with the real intrahepatic structures observed during operation. Preoperative plans in the 3DP group including two right anterior lobectomies, one right posterior lobectomy, and one hilar cholangiocarcinoma radical resection were adjusted to two V segmentectomies, one VII segmentectomy, and one IV segmentectomy, respectively. We modified the surgical strategy for these four patients (4/24, 16.7%) due to real-time navigation using 3DP technology and ICG fluorescent staining in the 3DP group. We did not modify the surgical strategy for any patient in the non-3DP group (P = 0.02). The counts of patients subjected to anatomical segmentectomy, right anterior lobectomy, right posterior lobectomy, mesohepatectomy, right hemihepatectomy, and radical resection of HCA under laparoscopy were 6, 2, 7, 2, 9, and 4 in the non-3DP group and 5, 3, 4, 3, 6, and 3 in the 3DP group (P>0.05), respectively. There were no significant differences between the non-3DP and 3DP groups regarding operation time (297.7±104.1 min vs. 328.8±110.9 min, P = 0.15), estimated blood loss (400±263.8 ml vs. 345.8±356.1 ml, P = 0.52), conversion to laparotomy (3/30 vs. 2/24, P = 0.79), or pathological outcomes including the incidence of microscopical R0 margins (28/30 vs. 24/24, P = 0.57). All HCCs were unifocal. The proportion of patients with HCC who achieved margins ≥ 2 cm was higher in the 3DP group, but this difference was not significant (61.5% vs. 47.4%; P = 0.67). For a total of five patients, surgical strategy was converted to laparotomy due to severe adhesion around important vessels. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications or recovery conditions between the two groups. No cases of 30- or 90- day liver decompensation or mortality were observed in either of the groups. The cost effectiveness did not significantly differ between the non-3DP and 3DP groups ($9431.50±$4730.40 USD vs. $10360.70±$2899.30 USD, P = 0.20). Follow-up was terminated in December 2021, which was when the number of events reached the minimum required for statistical analysis. There was no difference in overall survival (OS) (P = 0.75) or recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P = 0.25) between the two groups of patients with HCC (Fig 6). Intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes for the two groups are presented in Table 2.

Fig 6

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) analysis between the 3DP and non-3DP groups of patients with HCC.

Table 2

Intraoperative and postoperative characteristics of the non-3DP and 3DP groups.

Variables	Non-3DP(n = 30)	3DP(n = 24)	P value
Surgical strategy modified	0/30	4/24	0.02
Surgical approaches
Lap. hepatic segmentectomy	6/30	5/24	0.94
Lap. right anterior lobectomy	2/30	3/24	0.46
Lap. right posterior lobectomy	7/30	4/24	0.55
Lap. mesohepatectomy	2/30	3/24	0.46
Lap. right hemihepatectomy	9/30	6/24	0.68
Lap. radical resection of HCA	4/30	3/24	0.93
Operating time (min)	297.7±104.1	328.8±110.9	0.15
Blood loss (ml)	400.0±263.8	345.8±356.1	0.52
R0 resection	28/30	24/24	0.57
Conversion to laparotomy	3/30	2/24	0.79
Liver function test of POD 1
Total bilirubin (umol/L)	30.7±16.3	33.4±19.5	0.29
Albumin (g/L)	29.4±4.6	30.1±4.4	0.28
ALT (U/L)	243.4±183.9	255.5±133.1	0.39
Liver function test of POD 3
Total bilirubin (umol/L)	31.7±18.5	39.1±28.6	0.13
Albumin (g/L)	31.1±4.0	31.2±3.1	0.46
ALT (U/L)	164.0±147.4	215.8±118.9	0.08
Liver function test of POD 5
Total bilirubin (umol/L)	27.6±21.2	31.5±29.2	0.29
Albumin (g/L)	33.3±3.2	33.2±3.2	0.45
ALT (U/L)	92.0±95.3	138.0±125.5	0.07
Postoperative complications	11/30	5/24	0.33
Bile leakage	5/30	2/24	0.62
Intra-abdominal abscess	3/30	1/24	0.79
Pulmonary infection	3/30	2/24	0.77
Intra-abdominal bleeding	0	0
Liver failure	0	0
Postoperative length of stay	12±5.4	8.9±8.7	0.53
Hospitalization costs (dollars)	9431.5±4730.4	10360.7±2899.3	0.20
Tumor factors of HCC
Size (cm)	4.8±3.4	6.1±2.7	0.70
Surgical margin (<2cm/≥2cm)	10/9	5/8	0.67
AJCC stage (ⅠB/Ⅱ/ⅢB)	4/9/6	4/5/4	0.89

3DP: three-dimensional printing; Lap: laparoscopic; POD: postoperative day; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AJCC: American Joint Committee on Cancer.

Discussion

Liver resection is currently accepted as an initial and curative form of treatment for begin and malignant hepatic lesions, even though various alternative treatment choices exist [14]. AR, including systemic removal of the tumor-bearing portal territories, improves local control of the disease by eradicating potential micrometastases via the portal veins [15]. In theory, AR is considered an effective way to treat hepatic lesions. However, the superiority of AR compared to non-anatomical resection (NAR) remains controversial. The most recent studies have shown that AR results in decreased recurrence after the initial hepatectomy. An assessment of recurrence mode and treatment for the recurrence showed that aggressive interventions with curative intent were performed more frequently for intrahepatic recurrence in the NAR group compared to the AR group (42% vs. 10%, P<0.001), which led to comparable time-to-interventional failure and overall survival between the two groups [16]. Thus, the AR surgical technique is more effective than NAR. However, compared to NAR, AR is associated with the adverse features of major liver resection, longer operating time, increased blood loss, and wider surgical margins, and is generally regarded as a more technically demanding operation [17]. Laparoscopic AR is even more challenging, especially for lesions located close to the main hepatic vein, portal vein, or inferior vena cava [18, 19]. In this study, we applied 3DP models and ICG fluorescence imaging technology to LH for the treatment of complex liver lesions, and facilitated the procedures both safely and effectively.

The liver is a solid and opaque organ separated into eight regions known as Couinaud segments with a dense and intricate distribution of blood vessels and bile ducts. LH has become more widely used for the treatment of hepatic lesions due to recent advances in related instruments and surgical techniques. However, it is still difficult to achieve AR and guarantee R0 resection while using laparoscopic techniques to treat complex hepatobiliary diseases. Aside from the skill of laparoscopic technique, the main reasons for failed CLH include poor preoperative evaluation and limited real-time intraoperative navigation [5]. 3D virtual reconstructive technology based on CT or MRI data has been widely applied to the preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation of CLH with decent short-term outcomes [20]. However, this procedure still has the following undesirable characteristics. First, virtual 3D models lack the aspect of physical touch and space. The sense of touch offers quick visual information transfer by handling a physical object, which is missing when the same images (either 2D or 3D) are displayed on a screen [21]. Second, inexperienced hepatobiliary surgeons may have difficultly comprehending spatial structures in the virtual image, which could result in an improper understanding of the disease state and inappropriate choice of surgical strategy. Third, virtual images are displayed on a 2D plane and overlap with each other. This may result in inaccurate preoperative evaluation and lead to severe perioperative complications, especially for complex hepatobiliary diseases [22]. On the contrary, 3D printing is a technology that transforms a virtual 3D model into a real object, thus helping to solve the problems of virtual 3D technology. 3D printing can produce an anatomical physical model based on the unique characteristics of an individual patient, allowing for comprehensive multi-angle observation of intra-hepatic structures [23, 24]. In our study, we adjusted and oriented the liver models during surgery to match the actual anatomical positions we observed. This helped us to precisely separate important blood vessels and bile ducts (Figs 2 and 3), form an appropriate surgical strategy, avoid accidental damage to intrahepatic vessels, and facilitate CLH both safely and efficiently through real-time navigation. In this study, preoperative plans in the 3DP group including two right anterior lobectomies, one right posterior lobectomy, and one hilar cholangiocarcinoma radical resection were adjusted to two V segmentectomies, one VII segmentectomy, and one IV segmentectomy, respectively. We modified the surgical strategy for these four patients (4/24, 16.7%) due to real-time navigation of 3DP technology and ICG fluorescent imaging. We did not modify the surgical strategy for any patient in the non-3DP group (P = 0.02). We were able to choose the optimal surgical procedures with increased precision and a lower volume of resection through preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation based on the 3DP models, as compared to using 3D simulation reconstruction. All final pathological microscopic R0 margins were negative in 3DP group, while two were positive in the non-3DP group.

Fig 3

3D printing technology was applied in laparoscopic Ⅴ segmentectomy real-timely.

(vB5: the ventral bile duct of segment 5, dB5: the dorsal bile duct of segment 5, B8: the bile duct of segment 8, RAB: right anterior bile duct, RHV: right hepatic vein, RHV-V5: The venous reflux of hepatic segment 5 to RHV,RHV-V6: The venous reflux of hepatic segment 6 to RHV).

3D printing has been widely applied to plastic and reconstructive surgeries with good clinical effects [25-27]. However, the effects and value of applying 3D printing to LH have rarely been reported on and are relatively uncertain, especially due to the lengthy time and high cost required to produce liver models [28, 29]. Currently, it would take about 72–160 hours and $434.50-$869.10 USD to create a simple liver model [30, 31]. In one report, a fully transparent model with three to four levels of intrahepatic duct branches took about 10 days to complete and cost $1552 USD [8]. This sort of model is too time-consuming for preoperative preparation and barely affordable for most patients in China. To account for this, we modified the process of 3DP liver model production, with focus on reducing time and cost while ensuring high quality. Our models were made of inexpensive photosensitive resin materials and printed at a 1:1 size ratio to real liver structures using a hollowed-out design [29]. Only the hepatic lesions with blood vessels, bile ducts, and their branches (diameter > 2 mm) were printed, excluding any spare liver parenchyma. The liver surface was designed with 45–50 mm diameter apertures. We created a modified model that included visualized, tangible, and multi-perspective intra- and extra-hepatic structures, while also reducing both the time and cost of production. From data extraction to final polishing, the model took about 56.8 hours to create and only cost about $104.40 USD, which is much cheaper than the previously reported models. In Zein’s study, the dimension error between the 3DP liver model and the actual liver was less than 4.0 mm, and the intrahepatic blood vessel diameter error was less than 1.3 mm [32]. In our study, the intrahepatic ducts of the 3DP liver models were validated according to their corresponding real livers during operation (Figs 2, 3 and 5). Furthermore, the hospitalization costs for the non-3DP and 3DP groups did not significantly differ ($9431.50±$4730.40 USD vs $10360.70±$2899.30 USD, P = 0.20). These advantages increase the possibility of applying 3DP technology and ICG fluorescence imaging to CLH.

Aside from the skill of laparoscopic technique, successful LH depends on the correct determination of the anatomic boundary and the plane of disconnected liver parenchyma. Large hepatectomies, such as sectionectomies or hemihepatectomies, pose the risk of impairing liver function and may even result in postoperative liver failure, whereas insufficient hepatectomies may spare a greater amount of ‘‘at-risk” residual liver parenchyma in which future ischemia and recurrences may occur. In addition, inaccurate intraoperative assessment has commonly resulted in tumor exposure at the surgical margin. The choice of surgical procedure must also consider radicality and the hepatic functional reserve. Although 3DP offers many great advantages, it is still difficult to precisely identify the plane between the removing and preserving hepatic segments using this technology. At present, ICG fluorescent imaging has gained popularity for intra-operative navigation during CLH due to its characteristics of retention and aggregation in hepatic cancer tissues, as well as excretion through the biliary ducts [33]. In our study, after the ligation of the hepatic pedicle in the removing segment, 2.5 mg of ICG was injected through the peripheral vein. Then, the visual contrast liver parenchyma between the removing and preserving hepatic segments was clearly visualized, allowing us to precisely perform hepatic parenchyma disconnection through the real-time navigation of ICG reverse staining (Fig 4). All CLH procedures were successfully performed except for two cases in the 3DP group (2/24, 8.3%) and three cases in the non-3DP group (3/30, 10%), which all involved conversion to laparotomy due to tight adhesion around important vessels as opposed to technical reasons. There were no significant differences between the non-3DP and 3DP groups regarding operating time (297.7±104.1 min vs. 328.8±110.9 min, P = 0.15), estimated blood loss (400±263.8 ml vs. 345.8±356.1 ml, P = 0.52), conversion to laparotomy (3/30 vs. 2/24, P = 0.79), or pathological outcomes including the incidence of microscopic R0 margins (28/30 vs. 24/24, P = 0.57). There were also no significant differences in postoperative complications or recovery conditions between the two groups. No instances of 30- or 90-day mortality were observed in either of the groups. Intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes for the two groups did not significantly differ. The possible reasons for these findings are as follows: (1) the small sample size of this study was too underpowered to show statistical differences between the two groups; (2) CLH is a very complicated and time-consuming operation in itself [34], even with the help of 3DP technology and ICG fluorescent navigation; (3) all surgeries were performed by experienced and highly-skilled laparoscopic surgeons, who could conduct CLH both safely and effectively using traditional methods even without 3DP technology. Overall, we conclude that the use of 3D printing and ICG fluorescence imaging technology in combination with CLH improves resection precision and the preservation of healthy liver parenchyma.

Limitations

Our study had several limitations worth noting. First, this was a retrospective study with a small sample size. Second, CLH procedures were performed by several experienced surgeons, which may have had an impact on perioperative outcomes (especially operating time, blood loss, and complications). Third, this study focused on surgical technique innovation and short-term effects rather than long-term oncological outcomes, which is another crucial factor that deserves further investigation. Finally, well-designed randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes that involve multiple centers should be conducted to verify the advantages of 3DP technology and ICG fluorescence imaging in CLH.

Conclusions

Our modified 3DP liver model required less time and money to produce compared to previous models, which increases the possibility of its application. With the help of 3DP technology and ICG fluorescent navigation, we may form the optimal strategy for CLH. However, this method didn’t improve intraoperative and short-term outcomes. Future studies should focus on long-term oncological outcomes and involve larger sample sizes.

23 Feb 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gianfranco D. Alpini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://aje.com/go/plos) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments/ Funding Section of your manuscript:

This study is supported by National Key R&D Program of China(2018YFB1107100); Basic Public Welfare Research Project of Zhejiang Province (LGF20H030011);

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present an innovative approach to surgical resection of difficult liver lesions. The employment of 3D modeling of the vascular network as well as implementation of dye helps surgeons clearly identify the liver tissue for retention and for removal. The following edits should be made prior to publication in PLoS ONE journal:

1. Thorough editing of the manuscript language. Various grammar errors were found in this manuscript and should be reviewed. Notably, words should not start with conjunction words like " But".

2. The discussion should be rewritten (first couple of paragraphs) due to its similarity to the introduction. The discussion is where the authors are able to criticize their work and see how it supports/contradicts other literature. It is this reviewers suggestion that the authors revamp this part of their work.

3. Inclusion of the cost effectiveness of 3D printing + Dye insertion should be included in this manuscript. What are the potential healthcare costs of these difficult surgeries? How much does inclusion of 3D visualization and dye injection help reduce this cost both for clinicians and patients?

Reviewer #2: In this paper 3D printing(3DP) technology and indocyanine green(ICG) fluorescent navigation were applied in laparoscopic complex hepatectomy(LCH) and explored the effects and value. 30 patients underwent LCH by conventional approach and 24 cases received LCH using 3DP technology and ICG fluorescent navigation.

Major comments:

1) data on the presence of liver cirrhosis in liver parenchyma should be provided

2) occurrence of liver decompensation at 30-day and 90- day post-intervention should be provided

3) authors should carefully discuss how much £D printing(3DP) technology and indocyanine green(ICG) fluorescent navigation may imply in term of health costs.

4) value of liver tests may vary among the groups in post surgical period. In particular cholestasis indexes. Please provide these data.

5) English should be revised.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 Mar 2022

Dear editor,

Thank you very much for your letter and advice. We have revised the manuscript, and would like to re-submit it for your consideration. We have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers, and the amendments are highlighted in the revised manuscript. Point by point responses to the reviewers’ comments are listed below this letter. This manuscript has been edited and proofread in standard English. We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in your journal.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Chengwu Zhang

Corresponding author

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for the constructive and positive comments.

Replies to Reviewer #1

Specific Comments

1. Thorough editing of the manuscript language. Various grammar errors were found in this manuscript and should be reviewed. Notably, words should not start with conjunction words like " But".

Answer: The manuscript has been edited in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.

2. The discussion should be rewritten (first couple of paragraphs) due to its similarity to the introduction. The discussion is where the authors are able to criticize their work and see how it supports/contradicts other literature. It is this reviewers suggestion that the authors revamp this part of their work.

Answer: The discussion has been rewritten in the first couple of paragraphs in the revised version to address this issue.

3. Inclusion of the cost effectiveness of 3D printing + Dye insertion should be included in this manuscript. What are the potential healthcare costs of these difficult surgeries? How much does inclusion of 3D visualization and dye injection help reduce this cost both for clinicians and patients?

Answer: Yes, the relevant data were added to state the cost effectiveness of 3D printing and ICG imaging in laparoscopic hepatectomy in the Table 2. in the revised version.

Replies to Reviewer #2

Specific Comments

1. Data on the presence of liver cirrhosis in liver parenchyma should be provided.

2. Occurrence of liver decompensation at 30-day and 90- day post-intervention should be provided.

Answer: The relevant data were added in the Table 1 and 2 in the revised manuscript.

3. Authors should carefully discuss how much £D printing(3DP) technology and indocyanine green(ICG) fluorescent navigation may imply in term of health costs.

Answer: Discussion about cost effectiveness of 3DP and ICG fluorescent navigation has been added in the revised version.

4. Value of liver tests may vary among the groups in post surgical period. In particular cholestasis indexes. Please provide these data.

Answer: The relevant data were provided in the Table 2 in the revised manuscript.

5. English should be revised.

Answer: The manuscript has been edited in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

25 Apr 2022

7 May 2022

Dear reviewers,

Thank you very much for your constructive and positive comments. Some of these suggestions are exactly what our article's issues are. We have revised the manuscript point by point as follows. We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Replies to Reviewer

Specific Comments

1.Further information about the tumor stages, unifocality or multifocality (HCC), and distance to the margins (R0) and why they had 2 cases with positive margins? How were the complications managed? Was a drain sufficient for the bile leak?

Answer: All the HCCs were single solid tumors, the further information was collected and added in the Table 2. in the revised version. 2 cases with positive margins(<2mm) were found in the Non-3DP group at the final histopathology of surgical specimen, that's because the two HCCs were adjacent tightly to important vessels that must be preserved. They were treated by salvage TACE and oral lenvatinib. The patients suffered from bile leak were only treated by keeping drain and had an uneventful recovery with no more complications eventually. Abdominal drainage tube was usually removed about one month after discharge.

2.Total duration of Pringle maneuver(s) for both cohorts would be interesting to compare and evaluate its impact on LFTs.

Answer: Yes, it was interesting. LFTs on the day 1, 3, 5 after operation actually showed no difference between the two groups. The relevant data listed in the Table 2.

3.The introduction and discussion are thorough however several grammatical and spelling errors need to be corrected and the manuscript would benefit from editorial input from a native English speaking person. The authors mention the limitation of their study from an oncological outcomes standpoint. Do they have any results on at least a 6 months - 2 year follow up, given that the patients were included from 2019?

Answer: The manuscript has been corrected in standard English. Follow-up data were collected and added in the Table 2. in the revised version. There was no difference in overall survival(OS) (P=0.75) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P=0.25) between the two groups in patients with HCC.

4.In table 1 the authors mention p values >0.05 for preoperative diagnosis and lesion location. Why did the authors not include the full number as the p value is greater than 0.05, hence not significant?

Answer: Thank you for your meticulous review, the p value was calculated by SPSS and corrected.

5.In patients and methods, the authors state "Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants. Due to the retrospective nature of this study, patient consent for inclusion was waived." These two statements are contradictory and the authors need to clarify what was done, whether patients consented or if the consent process was waived.

Answer: Thank you for your meticulous review again, the mistake should not happen. We deleted the contradictory sentence“Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.”

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Chengwu Zhang

Corresponding author

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Jul 2022

20 Jul 2022

Dear reviewers,

Thank you very much for your constructive and positive comments. We have revised the manuscript point by point as follows. This manuscript has been edited and proofread in standard English. We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Replies to Reviewer 3

Specific Comments from Reviewer #3: The manuscript PONE-D-21-33418R2 has been significantly improved and the data presentation as well. There are still too many spelling / grammatical issues in the manuscript to accept it for publication. I recommend to have a native English speaking person assist the authors with editing the manuscript. The data is interesting however there are no significant differences between the two analyzed patient groups to make any significant recommendation.

Answer: The manuscript has been edited in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. Yes, this modified procedure didn't improve the intraoperative and short-term outcomes, but the optimal surgical strategy for complex laparoscopic hepatectomy can be chosen with the help of 3DP technology and ICG fluorescent navigation.

Replies to Reviewer 4

Specific Comments from Reviewer #4: I did not have the opportunity to review the earlier version of this manuscript, but this one reads well and was very interesting. The authors are to be commended for their innovative approach to complex laparoscopic hepatectomy; I think their work will be of broad interest to hepatobiliary surgeons worldwide, despite a lack of statistically significant improvements in surgical outcome in their cohort of patients. The rationale behind my recommendation lies in that I think this manuscript would be of greater interest to a surgical journal, and would be seen by more surgeons in that type of publication.

Answer: Thank you for the approval of our work and encouragement. We have been very impressed by the overall quality of the work published by PLOS ONE. It will be my great pleasure and honor to publish our novel work in the PLOS ONE as well. Thank you very much for your kind recommendation.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Chengwu Zhang

Corresponding author

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 Jul 2022

Value of 3D printing technology combined with indocyanine green fluorescent navigation in complex laparoscopic  hepatectomy

PONE-D-21-33418R3

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gregory Tiao, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors nicely addressed the minor issues raised in the previous review

Reviewers' comments:

2 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-33418R3

Value of 3D printing technology combined with indocyanine green fluorescent navigation in complex laparoscopic hepatectomy

Dear Dr. Zhang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Gregory Tiao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE