Three dimensional models in uro-oncology: a future built with additive fabrication
- 125 Downloads
Three-dimensional (3D) printing was invented in 1983 but has only just begun to influence medicine and surgery. Conversion of digital images into physical models demonstrates promise to revolutionize multiple domains of surgery. In the field of uro-oncology, researchers and clinicians have recognized the potential of this technology and are working towards making it an integral part of urological practice. We review current literature regarding 3D printing and other 3D technology in the field of urology.
A comprehensive assessment of contemporary literature was performed according to a modified PRISMA analysis for the purposes of this narrative review article. Medical databases that were searched included: Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Articles assessed were limited only to English-language peer-reviewed articles published between 1980 and 2017. The search terms used were “3D”, “3-dimensional”, “printing”, “printing technology”, “urology”, “surgery”. Acceptable articles were reviewed and incorporated for their merit and relevance with preference given for articles with high impact, original research and recent advances.
Thirty-five publications were included in final analysis and discussion.
The area of 3D printing in Urology shows promising results, but further research is required and cost reduction must occur before clinicians fully embrace its use. As costs continue to decline and diversity of materials continues to expand, research and clinical utilization will increase. Recent advances have demonstrated the potential of this technology in the realms of education and surgical optimization. The generation of personalized organs using 3D printing scaffolding remains the ‘holy grail’ of this technology.
Keywords3D 3-Dimensional 3D printing 3D reconstruction Surgery Robotic surgery Urology
All Authors contributed to the production of this manuscript. TGM: Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing, Revision writing/editing. JSO: Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing, Revision writing/editing. DC: Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. MP: Data Analysis, Manuscript writing/editing, Revision writing/editing. JC-B: Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis. JC: Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis. DMB: Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis. NL: Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 8.Harrysson OLA, Hosni YA, Nayfeh JF (2007) Custom-designed orthopedic implants evaluated using finite element analysis of patient-specific computed tomography data: femoral-component case study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:91. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-8-91 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Transplant jaw made by 3D printer claimed as first (2017) http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16907104. Accessed 19 Dec 2017
- 11.Knoedler M, Feibus AH, Lange A, Maddox MM, Ledet E, Thomas R, Silberstein JL (2015) Individualized physical 3-dimensional kidney tumor models constructed from 3-dimensional printers result in improved trainee anatomic understanding. Urology 85(6):1257–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.02.053 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.de Luyk N, Namdarian B, Challacombe B (2017) Touching the future: three-dimensional printing facilitates preoperative planning, realistic simulation and enhanced precision in robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 119(4):510–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13800 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Simpfendorfer T, Li Z, Gasch C, Drosdzol F, Fangerau M, Muller M, Maier-Hein L, Hohenfellner M, Teber D (2017) Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Preoperative Imaging Improves Surgical Success in Laparoscopy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 27(2):181–185. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0424 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Manning TG, Christidis D, Coles-Black J, McGrath S, O’Brien J, Chuen J, Bolton D, Lawrentschuk N (2017) “Plug and Play”: a novel technique utilising existing technology to get the most out of the robot. J Robot Surg 11(2):235–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0670-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Lee SL, Lerotic M, Vitiello V, Giannarou S, Kwok KW, Visentini-Scarzanella M, Yang GZ (2010) From medical images to minimally invasive intervention: computer assistance for robotic surgery. Comput Med Imaging Graph 34(1):33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2009.07.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Del Junco M, Yoon R, Okhunov Z, Abedi G, Hwang C, Dolan B, Landman J (2015) Comparison of flow characteristics of novel three-dimensional printed ureteral stents versus standard ureteral stents in a porcine model. J Endourol 29(9):1065–1069. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0716 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Del Junco M, Okhunov Z, Yoon R, Khanipour R, Juncal S, Abedi G, Lusch A, Landman J (2015) Development and initial porcine and cadaver experience with three-dimensional printing of endoscopic and laparoscopic equipment. J Endourol 29(1):58–62. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0280 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 30.Mitsouras D, Liacouras P, Imanzadeh A, Giannopoulos AA, Cai T, Kumamaru KK, George E, Wake N, Caterson EJ, Pomahac B, Ho VB, Grant GT, Rybicki FJ (2015) Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. Radiographics 35(7):1965–1988. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140320 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Rutula WA WD (2008) Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities 2008. CDC (Dept of Health and Human Services USA). http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/Disinfection_Nov_2008.pdf. 2017
- 33.Australia TGA (2017) Proposed regulatory changes related to personalised and 3D printed medical devices. Consultation paper. https://www.tga.gov.au/consultation/consultation-proposed-regulatory-changes-related-personalised-and-3d-printed-medical-devices. Accessed 19 Dec 2017
- 35.Morrison RJ, Kashlan KN, Flanangan CL, Wright JK, Green GE, Hollister SJ, Weatherwax KJ (2015) Regulatory considerations in the design and manufacturing of implantable 3D-printed medical devices. Clin Transl Sci 8(5):594–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12315 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar