Complete resection of adult prostatic rhabdomyosarcoma with 3D video and printing model: A case report and literature review

Three-Dimensional Physical Model in Urologic Cancer

Three-dimensional (3D) printing, as an evolving technology, enables the creation of patient-specific physical models with high precision; thus, it is widely used in various clinical practices, especially urologic cancer. There is an increasing need to clarify the contribution of 3D printing in the practice of urological cancer in order to identify various applications and improve understanding its benefits and challenges in clinical practice. Researches have focused on the use of 3D-printed models in patient and trainee education, surgical simulation, as well as surgical planning and guidance. This mini review will present the most recently published studies on the topic, including the applications of 3D-printed models, feasibility of performed procedures, possible simulated organs, application outcomes, and challenges involved in urologic cancer, to provide potential directions for future research.

Three-dimensional printing - Assisted planning for complete and safe resection of retroperitoneal tumor

BACKGROUND

Surgery is usually recommended to treat retroperitoneal tumors. However, complete surgical resections often remain challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the assistant role of three-dimensional (3D) imaging and printing model in retroperitoneal tumor resection, as well as compare the difference between 3D printing and computed tomography (CT) in preoperative planning and confidence building.

METHODS

We admitted a patient with retroperitoneal mass (13.0×6.4×14.8 cm) adjacent to important abdominal blood vessels whose surgery was thought to be difficult. 3D printing and CT was arranged. A novel questionnaire and scoring system consisting of surgery difficulty and safety were designed to compare doctors understanding and confidence for surgery based on 3D printing and CT. Twenty-four doctors completed the scoring table based on CT and then 3D imaging, respectively. Paired t-test was applied for statistics analysis.

RESULTS

Preoperative evaluation based on 3D printing indicated that the tumor could be removed completely. The operation lasted 120 minutes to successfully remove the tumor and the estimated blood loss was less than 100 ml. Scores based on 3D printing is significantly higher than CT in difficulty and safety of surgery (p < 0.001). Interestingly, the junior doctors seem to benefit more from 3D printing than the senior doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

3D imaging and printing model provides greater help for preoperative planning and confidence building than using CT in resection of retroperitoneal tumor, especially for the junior doctors.