School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy -
School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2022 Apr;74(2):178-185. doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04131-X. Epub 2021 Mar 26.
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.
目前有许多特定的 3D 成像技术可供泌尿科医生使用。本研究旨在评估他们对前列腺癌和肾癌手术领域不同 3D 成像工具的看法。
要求参加第 8 届 Techno-Urology-Meeting 的所有与会者填写一份问卷，内容涉及 3D 虚拟重建 PDF、3D 打印模型、增强现实 (AR) 和混合现实技术在手术规划、患者咨询、术中指导和肾癌、前列腺癌手术培训中的作用；此外，还比较了用于 3D 打印的不同材料，以评估最适合再现器官和肿瘤特征的材料，以及它们的估计成本和生产时间。
该人群由 180 名与会者组成。总体而言，AR 是前列腺癌（55%和 38.3%）和肾癌（58.3%和 40%）手术中术中指导和培训的首选。在手术规划方面，HoloLens（微软公司，雷德蒙德，WA，美国）被认为是最佳成像技术（前列腺 50%，肾脏 60%），而打印模型则用于患者咨询（前列腺 66.7%，肾脏 61.7%）。融合沉积模型被认为是最能代表肾脏解剖结构和肾肿瘤位置的最佳打印技术（40%），而硅（46.7%）和 Polyjet（36.7%）模型则用于前列腺解剖结构和癌症位置。最后，与会者对 3D 打印成本和生产时间的了解甚少。
我们的研究表明，一组不同的泌尿科医生对 3D 成像技术在日常手术实践中的作用和潜在应用的看法。
