Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 2/2019

01-02-2019

Impact of 3D printing technology on the comprehension of surgical liver anatomy

Authors: Tianyou Yang, Shuwen Lin, Qigen Xie, Wenwei Ouyang, Tianbao Tan, Jiahao Li, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiliang Yang, Huiying Wu, Jing Pan, Chao Hu, Yan Zou

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background and aims

Surgical planning in liver resection depends on the precise understanding of the three-dimensional (3D) relation of tumors to the intrahepatic vascular trees. This study aimed to investigate the impact of 3D printing (3DP) technology on the understanding of surgical liver anatomy.

Methods

We selected four hepatic tumors that were previously resected. For each tumor, a virtual 3D reconstruction (VIR) model was created from multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) and was prototyped using a 3D printer. Forty-five surgical residents were evenly assigned to each group (3DP, VIR, and MDCT groups). After evaluation of the MDCT scans, VIR model, or 3DP model of each tumor, surgical residents were asked to assign hepatic tumor locations and state surgical resection proposals. The time used to specify the tumor location was recorded. The correct responses and time spent were compared between the three groups.

Results

The assignment of tumor location improved steadily from MDCT, to VIR, and to 3DP, with a mean score of 34.50, 55.25, and 80.92, respectively. These scores were out of 100 points. The 3DP group had significantly higher scores compared with other groups (p < 0.001). Furthermore, 3DP significantly improved the accuracy of surgical resection proposal (p < 0.001). The mean accuracy of the surgical resection proposal for 3DP, VIR, and MDCT was 57, 25, and 25%, respectively. The 3DP group took significantly less time, compared with other groups (p < 0.005). The mean time spent on assessing the tumor location for 3DP, VIR, and MDCT groups was 93, 223, and 286 s, respectively.

Conclusions

3D printing improves the understanding of surgical liver anatomy for surgical residents. The improved comprehension of liver anatomy may facilitate laparoscopy or open liver resection.
Literature
1.
Couinaud C (1992) The anatomy of the liver. Annali italiani di chirurgia 63:693–697PubMed
2.
Bismuth H (1982) Surgical anatomy and anatomical surgery of the liver. World J Surg 6:3–9CrossRef
3.
Marescaux J, Clement JM, Tassetti V, Koehl C, Cotin S, Russier Y et al (1998) Virtual reality applied to hepatic surgery simulation: the next revolution. Ann Surg 228:627–634CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Lamade W, Glombitza G, Fischer L, Chiu P, Cardenas CE, Meinzer HP et al (2000) The impact of 3-dimensional reconstructions on operation planning in liver surgery. Arch Surg 135:1256–1261CrossRefPubMed
5.
van Leeuwen MS, Noordzij J, Hennipman A, Feldberg MA (1995) Planning of liver surgery using three-dimensional imaging techniques. Eur J Cancer 31:1212–1215CrossRef
6.
Matsumoto JS, Morris JM, Foley TA, Williamson EE, Leng S, McGee KP et al (2015) Three-dimensional Physical modeling: applications and experience at Mayo clinic. Radiographics 35:1989–2006CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zein NN, Hanouneh IA, Bishop PD, Samaan M, Eghtesad B, Quintini C et al (2013) Three-dimensional print of a liver for preoperative planning in living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 19:1304–1310CrossRefPubMed
8.
Costello JP, Olivieri LJ, Krieger A, Thabit O, Marshall MB, Yoo SJ et al (2014) Utilizing three-dimensional printing technology to assess the feasibility of high-fidelity synthetic ventricular septal defect models for simulation in medical education. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg 5:421–426CrossRefPubMed
9.
Igami T, Nakamura Y, Hirose T, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y, Sugawara G 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 38:3163–3166CrossRefPubMed
10.
Dickinson KJ, Matsumoto J, Cassivi SD, Reinersman JM, Fletcher JG, Morris J et al (2015) Individualizing management of complex esophageal pathology using three-dimensional printed models. Ann Thorac Surg 100:692–697CrossRefPubMed
11.
Kusaka M, Sugimoto M, Fukami N, Sasaki H, Takenaka M, Anraku T et al (2015) Initial experience with a tailor-made simulation and navigation program using a 3-D printer model of kidney transplantation surgery. Transpl Proc 47:596–599CrossRef
12.
Liew Y, Beveridge E, Demetriades AK, Hughes MA (2015) 3D printing of patient-specific anatomy: a tool to improve patient consent and enhance imaging interpretation by trainees. Br J Neurosurg 29:712–714CrossRefPubMed
13.
Mitsouras D, Liacouras P, Imanzadeh A, Giannopoulos AA, Cai TR, Kumamaru KK et al (2015) Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. Radiographics 35:1966–1989CrossRef
14.
Marconi S, Pugliese L, Botti M, Peri A, Cavazzi E, Latteri S et al (2017) Value of 3D printing for the comprehension of surgical anatomy. Surg Endosc 31:4102–4110CrossRefPubMed
15.
Witowski JS, Coles-Black J, Zuzak TZ, Pedziwiatr M, Chuen J, Major P et al (2017) 3D printing in liver surgery: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health 23:943–947CrossRefPubMed
16.
Madurska MJ, Poyade M, Eason D, Rea P, Watson AJ (2017) Development of a patient-specific 3D-printed liver model for preoperative planning. Surg Innov 24:145–150CrossRefPubMed
17.
Soon DSC, Chae MP, Pilgrim CHC, Rozen WM, Spychal RT, Hunter-Smith DJ (2016) 3D haptic modelling for preoperative planning of hepatic resection: a systematic review. Ann Med Surg 10:1–7CrossRef
18.
Souzaki R, Kinoshita Y, Ieiri S, Hayashida M, Koga Y, Shirabe K 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 31:593–596CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
Yang T, Tan T, Yang J, Pan J, Hu C, Li J et al (2018) The impact of using three-dimensional printed liver models for patient education. J Int Med Res 46:1570–1578CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Strasberg SM, for the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Terminology Committee Survey (2000) The Brisbane 2000 Terminology of Liver Anatomy and Resections. HPB 2:333–339CrossRef
22.
Witowski JS, Pedziwiatr M, Major P, Budzynski A (2017) Cost-effective, personalized, 3D-printed liver model for preoperative planning before laparoscopic liver hemihepatectomy for colorectal cancer metastases. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 12:2047–2054CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
24.
Giannopoulos AA, Mitsouras D, Yoo S-J, Liu PP, Chatzizisis Y, Rybicki FJ (2016) Applications of 3D printing in cardiovascular diseases. Nat Rev Cardiol 13:701–718CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Kappers AM (2011) Human perception of shape from touch. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 366:3106–3114CrossRef
27.
Shafiee A, Atala A (2016) Printing Technologies for Medical Applications. Trends Mol Med 22:254–265CrossRefPubMed
28.
Burdall OC, Makin E, Davenport M, Ade-Ajayi N (2016) 3D printing to simulate laparoscopic choledochal surgery. J Pediatr Surg 51:828–831CrossRef
29.
Metadata
Title
Impact of 3D printing technology on the comprehension of surgical liver anatomy
Authors
Tianyou Yang
Shuwen Lin
Qigen Xie
Wenwei Ouyang
Tianbao Tan
Jiahao Li
Zhiyuan Chen
Jiliang Yang
Huiying Wu
Jing Pan
Chao Hu
Yan Zou
Publication date
01-02-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6308-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Surgical Endoscopy 2/2019 Go to the issue

New Technology

Efficacy and safety of an internal magnet traction device for endoscopic submucosal dissection: ex vivo study in a porcine model (with video)

2018 SAGES Oral Dynamic

Thoracoscopic truncal vagotomy versus surgical revision of the gastrojejunal anastomosis for recalcitrant marginal ulcers

Endoluminal Surgery

New experience of endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary neoplasms

OriginalPaper

Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) with the newest robotic surgical platform: a multi-institutional North American experience

OriginalPaper

Professional fee payments by specialty for inpatient open ventral hernia repair: who gets paid for treating comorbidities and complications?

OriginalPaper

Minimally invasive surgery for stage III colon adenocarcinoma is associated with less delay to initiation of adjuvant systemic therapy and improved survival