3D imaging technologies in minimally invasive kidney and prostate cancer surgery: which is the urologists' perception?


Journal

Minerva urology and nephrology
ISSN: 2724-6442
Titre abrégé: Minerva Urol Nephrol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101777299

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Historique:
pubmed: 27 3 2021
medline: 31 3 2022
entrez: 26 3 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Many specific 3D imaging technologies are currently available for the practising urologists. The aim of the study was to assess their perception about different 3D imaging tools in the field of prostate and kidney cancer surgery. All the attendees of the 8th Techno-Urology-Meeting were asked to fill a questionnaire regarding the role of 3D virtual reconstruction PDFs, 3D printing models, augmented-reality (AR) and mixed reality technology in the setting of surgical planning, patient counselling, intraoperative guidance and training for kidney and prostate cancer surgery; Moreover the different materials used for 3D printing were compared to assess the most suitable in reproducing the organ and tumor features, as well as their estimated cost and production time. The population consisted of 180 attendees. Overall, AR was the preferred option for intraoperative guidance and training, in both prostate (55% and 38.3%) and kidney cancer surgery (58.3% and 40%). HoloLens (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) was perceived as the best imaging technology for the surgical planning (50% for prostate and 60% for kidney), whereas printed models for patients counselling (66.7% for prostate and 61.7% for kidney). Fused deposition models were deemed as the best printing technology in representing kidney anatomy and renal tumor location (40%), while silicon (46.7%) and Polyjet (36.7%) models for prostate anatomy and cancer location. Finally, attendees demonstrated poor knowledge of 3D printing costs and production times. Our study shows the perceptions of a heterogeneous surrogate of practicing urologists about the role and potential applications of 3D imaging technologies in daily surgical practice.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Many specific 3D imaging technologies are currently available for the practising urologists. The aim of the study was to assess their perception about different 3D imaging tools in the field of prostate and kidney cancer surgery.
METHODS METHODS
All the attendees of the 8th Techno-Urology-Meeting were asked to fill a questionnaire regarding the role of 3D virtual reconstruction PDFs, 3D printing models, augmented-reality (AR) and mixed reality technology in the setting of surgical planning, patient counselling, intraoperative guidance and training for kidney and prostate cancer surgery; Moreover the different materials used for 3D printing were compared to assess the most suitable in reproducing the organ and tumor features, as well as their estimated cost and production time.
RESULTS RESULTS
The population consisted of 180 attendees. Overall, AR was the preferred option for intraoperative guidance and training, in both prostate (55% and 38.3%) and kidney cancer surgery (58.3% and 40%). HoloLens (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) was perceived as the best imaging technology for the surgical planning (50% for prostate and 60% for kidney), whereas printed models for patients counselling (66.7% for prostate and 61.7% for kidney). Fused deposition models were deemed as the best printing technology in representing kidney anatomy and renal tumor location (40%), while silicon (46.7%) and Polyjet (36.7%) models for prostate anatomy and cancer location. Finally, attendees demonstrated poor knowledge of 3D printing costs and production times.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our study shows the perceptions of a heterogeneous surrogate of practicing urologists about the role and potential applications of 3D imaging technologies in daily surgical practice.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33769019
pii: S2724-6051.21.04131-X
doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04131-X
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

178-185

Auteurs

Daniele Amparore (D)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy - danieleamparore@hotmail.it.

Angela Pecoraro (A)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.

Enrico Checcucci (E)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Uro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Working Party of the European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, the Netherlands.

Sabrina DE Cillis (S)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.

Federico Piramide (F)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.

Gabriele Volpi (G)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.

Alberto Piana (A)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.

Paolo Verri (P)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.

Stefano Granato (S)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.

Michele Sica (M)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.

Matteo Manfredi (M)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.

Cristian Fiori (C)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.

Riccardo Autorino (R)

Division of Urology, VCU Health System, Richmond, VA, USA.

Francesco Porpiglia (F)

School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH