Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 8, pp 2339–2343 | Cite as

Impact of 3D Printing Technology on Comprehension of Surgical Anatomy of Retroperitoneal Tumor

  • Tianyou Yang
  • Shuwen Lin
  • Tianbao Tan
  • Jiliang Yang
  • Jing Pan
  • Chao Hu
  • Jiahao Li
  • Yan Zou
Original Scientific Report
  • 204 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the impact of 3D printed model on understanding of surgical anatomy of retroperitoneal tumor.

Materials and methods

Three-dimensional model was printed, based on multi-detectors computed tomography (MDCT) of a retroperitoneal tumor. Participants (10 students, 10 residents and 10 surgeons) were asked to identify vasculatures which were important in resection of the tumor, after viewing MDCT images, 3D visualization model and 3D printed model, respectively. Regarding this tumor, left renal vein (LRV), right renal pedicles (RRP) and inferior vena cava (IVC) were chosen as indicators to assess participants’ performances. Identification of vasculatures was evaluated and a score was given (1 point = success; 0 point = failure). The total number and percentage of correct identification were used to measure how these three types of anatomic presentation were able to transfer in terms of anatomical recognition. Recorded data were analyzed both pooling together data from three groups of participants and separately for each group.

Results

In analysis of overall comparison among 3D printing, 3D visualization and MDCT, recognition of all three vasculatures simultaneously was 83.33, 73.33 and 46.67%, respectively (P = 0.007); recognition of LRV was 90, 80 and 63.33% (P = 0.043), respectively; recognition of RRP was 96.67, 83.33 and 73.33% (P = 0.035), respectively; recognition of IVC was 93.33, 90 and 80% (P = 0.366), respectively. In subgroup analysis of performances of three groups of participants, no significant differences regarding anatomic recognition were observed among MDCT, 3D visualization and 3D printed model for each group of participants.

Conclusion

Three-dimensional printed model improved the understanding of surgical anatomy of retroperitoneal tumor.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81602199), Guangzhou Science Technology and Innovation Commission (Grant No. 201607010395), Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (Grant No. 2016A030313496).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Mirilas P, Skandalakis JE (2009) Surgical anatomy of the retroperitoneal spaces—part I: embryogenesis and anatomy. Am Surg 75:1091–1097PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mirilas P, Skandalakis JE (2010) Surgical anatomy of the retroperitoneal spaces, part IV: retroperitoneal nerves. Am Surg 76:253–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mirilas P, Skandalakis JE (2010) Surgical anatomy of the retroperitoneal spaces part II: the architecture of the retroperitoneal space. Am Surg 76:33–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mirilas P, Skandalakis JE (2010) Surgical anatomy of the retroperitoneal spaces, part V: surgical applications and complications. Am Surg 76:358–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marescaux J, Clement JM, Tassetti V et al (1998) Virtual reality applied to hepatic surgery simulation: the next revolution. Ann Surg 228:627–634CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lamade W, Glombitza G, Fischer L et al (2000) The impact of 3-dimensional reconstructions on operation planning in liver surgery. Arch Surg 135:1256–1261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Leeuwen MS, Noordzij J, Hennipman A et al (1995) Planning of liver surgery using three dimensional imaging techniques. Eur J Cancer 31a:1212–1215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee N (2016) The Lancet Technology: 3D printing for instruments, models, and organs? Lancet 388:1368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang Y, Ge HW, Li NC et al (2016) Evaluation of three-dimensional printing for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy of renal tumors: a preliminary report. World J Urol 34:533–537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soon DSC, Chae MP, Pilgrim CHC et al (2016) 3D haptic modelling for preoperative planning of hepatic resection: a systematic review. Ann Med Surg 10:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Powers MK, Lee BR, Silberstein J (2016) Three-dimensional printing of surgical anatomy. Curr Opin Urol 26:283–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krauel L, Fenollosa F, Riaza L et al (2016) Use of 3D prototypes for complex surgical oncologic cases. World J Surg 40:889–894.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3295-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zein NN, Hanouneh IA, Bishop PD et al (2013) Three-dimensional print of a liver for preoperative planning in living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 19:1304–1310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Madurska MJ, Poyade M, Eason D et al (2017) Development of a patient-specific 3D-printed liver model for preoperative planning. Surg Innov 24:145–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marconi S, Pugliese L, Botti M et al (2017) Value of 3D printing for the comprehension of surgical anatomy. Surg Endosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5457-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Souzaki R, Kinoshita Y, Ieiri S et al (2015) Three-dimensional liver model based on preoperative CT images as a tool to assist in surgical planning for hepatoblastoma in a child. Pediatr Surg Int 31:593–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Igami T, Nakamura Y, Hirose T et al (2014) Application of a three-dimensional print of a liver in hepatectomy for small tumors invisible by intraoperative ultrasonography: preliminary experience. World J Surg 38:3163–3166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2740-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kong XX, Nie LY, Zhang HJ et al (2016) Do 3D printing models improve anatomical teaching about hepatic segments to medical students? A randomized controlled study. World J Surg 40:1969–1976.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3541-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shafiee A, Atala A (2016) Printing technologies for medical applications. Trends Mol Med 22:254–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Malik HH, Darwood AR, Shaunak S et al (2015) Three-dimensional printing in surgery: a review of current surgical applications. J Surg Res 199:512–522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tianyou Yang
    • 1
  • Shuwen Lin
    • 2
  • Tianbao Tan
    • 1
  • Jiliang Yang
    • 1
  • Jing Pan
    • 1
  • Chao Hu
    • 1
  • Jiahao Li
    • 1
  • Yan Zou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric Surgery, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical CenterGuangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.The Fifth People’s Hospital of Dongguan CityDongguanChina

Personalised recommendations