Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perceptions of porta-celiac vascular models for hepatic surgery and their use in residency training

  • Teaching Anatomy
  • Published:
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Primary aspect of hepatic navigation surgery is the identification of source vascular details to preserve healthy liver which has a vascular anatomy quite challenging for the young surgeons. The purpose was to determine whether three-dimensional (3D) vascular pattern models of preoperative computed tomography (CT) images will assist resident-level trainees for hepatic surgery.

Methods

This study was based on the perception of residents who were presented with 5 different hepatic source vascular patterns and required to compare their perception level of CT, and 1:1 models in terms of importance of variability, differential of patterns and preoperative planning.

Results

All residents agree that models provided better understanding of vascular source and improved preplanning. Five stations provided qualitative assessment with results showing the usefulness of porta-celiac models when used as anatomical tools in preplanning (p = 0.04), simulation of interventional procedures (p = 0.02), surgical education (p = 0.01). None of the cases had scored less than 8.5. Responses related to understanding variations were significantly higher in the perception of the 3D model in all cases, furthermore 3D models were more useful for seniors in more complex cases 3 and 5. Some open-ended answers: “The 3D model can completely change the operation plan” One of the major factors for anatomical resection of liver transplantation is the positional relationship between the hepatic arteries and the portal veins.

Conclusion

The plastic-like material presenting the hepatic vascularity enables the visualization of the origin, pattern, shape, and angle of the branches with appropriate spatial perception thus making it well-structured.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aloia TA, Vauthey JN (2012) Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS): What is gained and what is lost? Ann Surg 256:e9-19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andolfi C, Plana A, Kania P, Banerjee PP, Small S (2017) Usefulness of three-dimensional modeling in surgical planning, resident training, and patient education. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 27:512–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Atasoy C, Ozyurek E (2006) Prevalence and types of main and right portal vein branching variations on MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:676–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baimakhanov Z, Soyama A, Takatsuki M, Hidaka M, Hirayama T, Kinoshita A, Natsuda K, Kuroki T, Eguchi S (2015) Preoperative simulation with a 3-dimensional printed solid model for one-step reconstruction of multiple hepatic veins during living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 21:266–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Balci D, Ahn CS (2019) Hepatic artery reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 24:631–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bati AH, Guler E, Ozer MA, Govsa F, Erozkan K, Vatansever S, Ersin MS, Elmas ZN, Harman M (2020) Surgical planning with patient-specific three-dimensional printed pancreaticobiliary disease models—cross-sectional study. Int J Surg 80:175–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bressan AK, Edwards JP, Grondin SC, Dixon E, Minter RM, Jeyarajah DR, Ball CG (2015) The adequacy of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary training: how closely do perceptions of fellows and programme directors align? HPB (Oxford) 17:791–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Covey AM, Brody LA, Getrajdman GI, Sofocleous TC, Brown KT (2004) Incidence, patterns, and clinical relevance of variant portal vein anatomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1055–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cromeens BP, Ray WC, Hoehne B, Abayneh F, Adler B, Besner GE (2017) Facilitating surgeon understanding of complex anatomy using a three-dimensional printed model. J Surg Res 216:18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Crossingham JL, Jenkinson J, Woolridge N, Gallinger S, Tait GA, Moulton CE (2009) Interpreting three-dimensional structures from two-dimensional images: a web-based interactive 3D teaching model of surgical liver anatomy. HPB (Oxford) 11:523–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. De Cecchis L, Hribernik M, Ravnik D, Gadzijev EM (2000) Anatomical variations in the pattern of the right hepatic veins: possibilities for type classification. J Anat 197(Pt 3):487–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Donato P, Coelho P, Rodrigues H, Vigia E, Fernandes J, Caseiro-Alves F, Bernardes A (2007) Normal vascular and biliary hepatic anatomy: 3D demonstration by multidetector CT. Surg Radiol Anat 29:575–582

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Erbay N, Raptopoulos V, Pomfret EA, Kamel IR, Kruskal JB (2003) Living donor liver transplantation in adults: vascular variants important in surgical planning for donors and recipients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:109–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fasel JH, Aguiar D, Kiss-Bodolay D, Montet X, Kalangos A, Stimec BV, Ratib O (2016) Adapting anatomy teaching to surgical trends: a combination of classical dissection, medical imaging, and 3D-printing technologies. Surg Radiol Anat 38:361–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hiatt JR, Gabbay J, Busuttil RW (1994) Surgical anatomy of the hepatic arteries in 1000 cases. Ann Surg 220:50–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ikegami T, Maehara Y (2013) Transplantation: 3D printing of the liver in living donor liver transplantation. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 10:697–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Javan R, Zeman M (2018) A prototype educational model for hepatobiliary interventions: unveiling the role of graphic designers in medical 3D printing. J Digit Imaging 31:133–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim TS, Noh YN, Lee S, Song SH, Shin M, Kim JM, Kwon CH, Kim SJ, Lee SK, Joh JW (2012) Anatomic similarity of the hepatic artery and portal vein according to the donor-recipient relationship. Transplant Proc 44:463–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Langridge B, Momin S, Coumbe B, Woin E, Griffin M, Butler P (2018) Systematic review of the use of 3 dimensional printing in surgical teaching assessment. J Surg Educ 75:209–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee KK, Lee SK, Moon IS, Kim DG, Lee MD (2008) Surgical techniques according to anatomic variations in living donor liver transplantation using the right lobe. Transplant Proc 40:2517–2520

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Madoff DC, Hicks ME, Vauthey JN, Charnsangavej C, Morello FA Jr, Ahrar K, Wallace MJ, Gupta S (2002) Transhepatic portal vein embolization: anatomy, indications, and technical considerations. Radiographics 5:1063–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Malik HH, Darwood ARJ, Shaunak S, Kulatilake P, El-Hilly AA, Mulki O, Baskaradas A (2015) Three-dimensional printing in surgery: a review of current surgical applications. J Surg Res 199:512–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marro A, Bandukwala T, Mak W (2016) Three-dimensional printing and medical imaging: a review of the methods and applications. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 45:2–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Martelli N, Serrano C, van den Brink H, Pineau J, Prognon P, Borget I, El Batti S (2016) Advantages and disadvantages of 3-dimensional printing in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 159:1485–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mattar SG, Alseidi AA, Jones DB, Jeyarajah DR, Swanstrom LL, Aye RW, Wexner SD, Martinez JM, Ross SB, Awad MM, Franklin ME, Arregui ME, Schirmer BD, Minter RM (2013) General surgery residency inadequately prepares trainees for fellowship: results of a survey of fellowship program directors. Ann Surg 258:440–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mochizuki K, Takatsuki M, Soyama A, Hidaka M, Obatake M, Eguchi S (2012) The usefulness of a high-speed 3D-image analysis system in pediatric living donor liver transplantation. Ann Transplant 17:31–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nemeth K, Deshpande R, Mathe Z, Szuák A, Kiss M, Korom C, Nemeskéri Á, Kóbori L (2015) Extrahepatic arteries of the human liver-anatomical variants and surgical relevancies. Transpl Int 28:1216–1226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ohshima S (2014) Volume analyzer synapse vincent for liver analysis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 21:235–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Olthoff KM, Abecassis MM, Emond JC, Kam I, Merion RM, Gillespie BW, Tong L (2011) Outcomes of adult living donor liver transplantation: comparison of the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study and the national experience. Liver Transplant 17:789–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ozturk AM, Ozer MA, Suer O, Derin O, Govsa F, Aktuglu K (2020) Evaluation of the effects of using 3D - patient specific models of displaced intra - articular calcaneal fractures in surgery. Injury 13:S0020-1383(20)30402–2

    Google Scholar 

  31. Perica ER, Sun Z (2018) A systematic review of three-dimensional printing in liver disease. J Digit Imaging 31:692–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Radtke A, Sotiropoulos GC, Sgourakis G, Molmenti EP, Schroeder T, Saner FH, Beckebaum S, Broelsch CE, Broering DC, Malago M (2010) Hepatic venous drainage: how much can we learn from imaging studies? Anatomic-functional classification derived from three-dimensional computed tomography reconstructions. Transplantation 89:1518–1525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Satou S, Sugawara Y, Tamura S, Kishi Y, Kaneko J, Matsui Y, Kokudo N, Makuuchi M (2007) Three-dimensional computed tomography for planning donor hepatectomy. Transplant Proc 39:145–149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Seshadri RM, Ali N, Warner S (2015) Training and practice of the next generation HPB surgeon: analysis of the 2014 AHPBA residents’ and fellows’ symposium survey. HPB (Oxford) 17:1096–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Uchida K, Taniguchi M, Shimamura T, Suzuki T, Yamashita K, Ota M, Kamiyama T, Matsushita M, Furukawa H, Todo S (2010) Three-dimensional computed tomography scan analysis of hepatic vasculatures in the donor liver for living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 16:1062–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tani K, Shindoh J, Akamatsu N, Arita J, Kaneko J, Sakamoto Y, Hasegawa K, Kokudo N (2016) Venous drainage map of the liver for complex hepatobiliary surgery and liver transplantation. HPB (Oxford) 18:1031–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Yeo CT, MacDonald A, Ungi T, Lasso A, Jalink D, Zevin B, Fichtinger G, Nanji S (2018) Utility of 3D reconstruction of 2D liver computed tomography/magnetic resonance images as a surgical planning tool for residents in liver resection surgery. J Surg Educ 75:792–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study has no funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomy, Digital Imaging and 3D Modelling Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, TR-35100, Izmir, Turkey

    Mehmet Asim Ozer, Figen Govsa & Yelda Pinar

  2. Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

    Alper Uguz, Omer Vedat Unalp & Ahmet Coker

  3. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

    Ezgi Guler

  4. Department of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

    Ayse Hilal Bati

Authors
  1. Mehmet Asim Ozer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alper Uguz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Omer Vedat Unalp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmet Coker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Figen Govsa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ezgi Guler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ayse Hilal Bati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yelda Pinar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AC, AU: project idea, project development. OVU: data collection, data analysis. AC: data analysis, surgery simulation. AHB: data analysis. EG: data collection, data analysis. MAO: 3D printing, 3D patient-specific models. FG: manuscript writing, manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Figen Govsa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare to conflict of interest in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ozer, M.A., Uguz, A., Unalp, O.V. et al. Perceptions of porta-celiac vascular models for hepatic surgery and their use in residency training. Surg Radiol Anat 43, 1359–1371 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-021-02724-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-021-02724-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation