Home > Journals > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Past Issues > Articles online first > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 Mar 26

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

 

Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 Mar 26

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04131-X

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

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

Daniele AMPARORE 1 , Angela PECORARO 1, Enrico CHECCUCCI 1, 2, Sabrina DE CILLIS 1, Federico PIRAMIDE 1, Gabriele VOLPI 1, Alberto PIANA 1, Paolo VERRI 1, Stefano GRANATO 1, Michele SICA 1, Matteo MANFREDI 1, Cristian FIORI 1, Riccardo AUTORINO 3, Francesco PORPIGLIA 1

1 Division of Urology, Departmet of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy; 2 Uro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Working Party of the European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands; 3 Division of Urology, VCU Health System, Richmond, Virginia, VA, USA


PDF


BACKGROUND: Many specific 3D imaging technologies are currently available for the practising urologists. Aim of the study was to assess their perception about different 3D imaging tools in the field of prostate and kidney cancer surgery.
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: 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 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: Our study shows the perceptions of a heterogeneous surrogate of practising urologists about the role and potential applications of 3D imaging technologies in daily surgical practice.


KEY WORDS: Three-dimensional imaging; Augmented reality; 3D printing; Holograms; Prostate cancer; Kidney cancer

top of page