Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Aug;42(8):2339-2343.
doi: 10.1007/s00268-018-4489-x.

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

Affiliations

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

Tianyou Yang et al. World J Surg. 2018 Aug.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. World J Urol. 2016 Apr;34(4):533-7 - PubMed
    1. Liver Transpl. 2013 Dec;19(12):1304-10 - PubMed
    1. Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct;31(10):4102-4110 - PubMed
    1. World J Surg. 2016 Apr;40(4):889-94 - PubMed
    1. Arch Surg. 2000 Nov;135(11):1256-61 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources