Skip to main content

How specific are patient-specific simulations? Analyzing the accuracy of 3D-printing and modeling to create patient-specific rehearsals for complex urological procedures

Abstract

Purpose

In the field of urology, 3D printing and modeling are now regularly utilized to enhance pre-operative planning, surgical training, patient-specific rehearsals (PSR), and patient education and counseling. Widespread accessibility and affordability of such technologies necessitates development of quality control measures to confirm the anatomical accuracy of these tools. Herein, we present three methods utilized to evaluate the anatomical accuracy of hydrogel PSR, developed using 3D printing and molding for pre-operative surgical rehearsals, of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

Methods

Virtual computer-aided designs (CADs) of patient anatomy were created through segmentation of patient CT scan images. Ten patient-specific RAPN and PCNL hydrogel models were CT scanned and segmented to create a corresponding model CAD. The part compare tool (3-matic, Materialize), point-to-point measurements, and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) analyzed surface geometry, alignment, and volumetric overlap of each model component.

Results

Geometries of the RAPN parenchyma, tumor, artery, vein, and pelvicalyceal system lay within an average deviation of 2.5 mm (DSC = 0.70) of the original patient geometry and 5 mm (DSC = 0.45) of the original patient alignment. Similarly, geometries of the PCNL pelvicalyceal system and stone lay within 2.5 mm (DSC = 0.6) and within 15 mm (16% deviation) in alignment. This process enabled the refinement of our modeling process to fabricate anatomically accurate RAPN and PCNL PSR.

Conclusion

As 3D printing and modeling continues to have a greater impact on patient care, confirming anatomical accuracy should be introduced as a quality control measure prior to use for patient care.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

3D:

Three-dimensional

CAD:

Computer-aided design

CPT:

Current procedural terminology

CT:

Computed Tomography

DICOM:

Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine

DSC:

Dice similarity coefficient

FDA:

Food and Drug Administration

MRI:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

PCNL:

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

PCS:

Pelvicalyceal system

PSR:

Patient-specific rehearsal

RAPN:

Robotic-assisted Partial Nephrectomy

References

  1. 1.

    Ryu WHA, Dharampal N, Mostafa AE, Sharlin E, Kopp G, Jacobs WB, Hurlbert RJ, Chan S, Sutherland GR (2017) Systematic review of patient-specific surgical simulation: toward advancing medical education. J Surg Educ 74(6):1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.05.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Nielsen CA, Lönn L, Konge L, Taudorf M (2020) Simulation-based virtual-reality patient-specific rehearsal prior to endovascular procedures: a systematic review. Diagnostics 10(7):500. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10070500

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Tomiyama K, Ghazi A, Hernandez-Alejandro R (2021) Looking beyond the horizon: patient-specific rehearsals for complex liver surgeries with 3D printed model. Ann Surg 273(1):e28–e30. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wake N, Nussbaum JE, Elias MI, Nikas CV, Bjurlin MA (2020) 3D printing, augmented reality, and virtual reality for the assessment and management of kidney and prostate cancer: a systematic review. Urology 143:20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.03.066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Smith B, Dasgupta P (2020) 3D printing technology and its role in urological training. World J Urol 38(10):2385–2391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Silberstein JL, Maddox MM, Dorsey P, Feibus A, Thomas R, Lee BR (2014) Physical models of renal malignancies using standard cross-sectional imaging and 3-dimensional printers: a pilot study. Urology 84(2):268–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.03.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    von Rundstedt FC, Scovell JM, Agrawal S, Zaneveld J, Link RE (2017) Utility of patient-specific silicone renal models for planning and rehearsal of complex tumour resections prior to robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 119(4):598–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13712

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    George E, Liacouras P, Rybicki FJ, Mitsouras D (2017) Measuring and establishing the accuracy and reproducibility of 3D printed medical models. Radiographics 37(5):1424–1450. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017160165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Parikh N, Sharma P (2018) Three-dimensional printing in urology: history, current applications, and future directions. Urology 121:3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wake N, Rude T, Kang SK, Stifelman MD, Borin JF, Sodickson DK, Huang WC, Chandarana H (2017) 3D printed renal cancer models derived from MRI data: application in pre-surgical planning. Abdom Radiol 42:1501–1509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-1022-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Michiels C, Jambon E, Bernhard JC (2019) Measurement of the accuracy of 3D-printed medical models to be used for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Am J Roentgenol 213:626–631

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ghazi A, Saba P, Melnyk R, Joseph J (2021) Utilizing 3D printing and hydrogel casting for the development of patient-specific rehearsal platforms for robotic assisted partial nephrectomies. Urology 147:317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.10.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ghazi A, Melnyk R, Hung AJ, Collins J, Ertefaie A, Saba P, Gurung P, Frye T, Rashid H, Wu G, Mottrie A (2020) Multi-institutional validation of a perfused robot-assisted partial nephrectomy procedural simulation platform utilizing clinically relevant objective metrics of simulators (CROMS). BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ghazi A, Campbell T, Melnyk R, Feng C, Andrusco A, Stone J, Erturk E (2017) Validation of a full-immersion simulation platform for percutaneous nephrolithotomy using 3D printing technology. J Endourol 31(12):1314–1320. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ghazi AE, Teplitz BA (2020) Role of 3D printing in surgical education for robotic urology procedures. Transl Androl Urol 9(2):931–941. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2020.01.03

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Melnyk R, Ezzat B, Saba P, Farooq S, Campbell T, McAleavey S, Buckley M, Ghazi A (2020) Mechanical and functional validation of a perfused, robot-assisted partial nephrectomy simulation platform using a combination of 3D printing and hydrogel casting. World J Urol 38(7):1631–1641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02989-z

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Evans J. (1996) Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Science. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Pub Co.

  18. 18.

    Xu Y, Yuan Y, Cai Y, Li X, Wan S, Xu G (2020) Use 3D printing technology to enhance stone free rate in single tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of staghorn stones. Urolithiasis 48:509–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01164-8

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Wake N, Nussbaum JE, Elias MI, Nikas CV, Bjurlin MA (2020) Author reply to editorial comment: 3D printing, augmented reality, and virtual reality for the assessment and management of kidney and prostate cancer: a systematic review. Urology 143:20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.03.066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wing I, Gorham R, Sniderman B (2015) 3D opportunity for quality assurance and parts qualification. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/3d-printing-quality-assurance-in-manufacturing/DUP_1410-3D-opportunity-QA_MASTER1.pdf. Deloitte University Press. Accessed March 17, 2021

  21. 21.

    American Medical Association (2019) CPT Category III Codes. https://www.va.gov/WHOLEHEALTH/docs/cpt-category3-codes-long-descriptors.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2021

Download references

Funding

R03 Grant (R03EB027300-02).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Protocol/project development: RM, AG; Data collection or management: RM, DO, AG; Data analysis: RM; Manuscript writing/editing: RM, AG.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed E. Ghazi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Not applicable.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Melnyk, R., Oppenheimer, D. & Ghazi, A.E. How specific are patient-specific simulations? Analyzing the accuracy of 3D-printing and modeling to create patient-specific rehearsals for complex urological procedures. World J Urol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03797-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Patient-specific
  • 3D printing
  • Anatomical accuracy
  • Simulations
  • Partial nephrectomy
  • Percutaneous nephrolithotomy