Article3D printing in medicine2019
Patient-specific 3D printed and augmented reality kidney and prostate cancer models: impact on patient education.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
100 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- From visualization to education: the role of 3D-Printed and virtual kidney models in training for renal cancer surgery, a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The Impact of Virtual-, Augmented- and Mixed Reality during Preoperative Informed Consent: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of medical systems · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical applications of 3D printing in colorectal surgery: A systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Pooled it
- 3D printed patient-specific prostate cancer models to guide nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Visual-Based Interventions on Understanding Cancer Information: A Systematic Review.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterPooled it
- Three-Dimensional-Printed Models and Shared Decision-Making: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Augmented Reality for Perioperative Anxiety in Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Article
- HoloVAD; A feasibility study of a new patient education tool for patients with a left ventricular assist device.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- 3D printed and virtual kidney models as learning tools to improve anatomical and spatial understanding of renal tumors: a pilot educational study (Rein-3D print students - UroCCR 219).3D printing in medicine · 2026Article
- A step-by-step guide for implementation of virtual surgical applications and patient data centralization: practical experience and lessons learned.3D printing in medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- B-onic Platform: A Single-Center Clinical Evaluation of an Integrated FabLab Workflow for Patient-Specific Surgical Planning and XR-Based Validation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- From the dissection hall to the digital frontier: A comprehensive review of innovations in anatomical pedagogy and their impact on health literacy and promotion.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Review
- Teaching and evolution in surgical planning of robotic partial nephrectomy with 3D printing models.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Using 3D-printing technology for patient education: a review of the literature.3D printing in medicine · 2025Review
- Patient consent in the modern era: Novel tools and practical considerations in urology.Current urology · 2025Article
- Patient and Public Perceptions of 3D Technologies (Models and Images) to Facilitate Health Care Consultations: Exploratory, Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Shared Decision-Making in Surgery-The Role of 3D-Printed Models.JAMA network open · 2025Article
40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-specific 3D models are being used increasingly in medicine for many applications including surgical planning, procedure rehearsal, trainee education, and patient education. To date, experiences on the use of 3D models to facilitate patient understanding of their disease and surgical plan are limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate in the context of renal and prostate cancer the impact of using 3D printed and augmented reality models for patient education.
methodsPatients with MRI-visible prostate cancer undergoing either robotic assisted radical prostatectomy or focal ablative therapy or patients with renal masses undergoing partial nephrectomy were prospectively enrolled in this IRB approved study (n = 200). Patients underwent routine clinical imaging protocols and were randomized to receive pre-operative planning with imaging alone or imaging plus a patient-specific 3D model which was either 3D printed, visualized in AR, or viewed in 3D on a 2D computer monitor. 3D uro-oncologic models were created from the medical imaging data. A 5-point Likert scale survey was administered to patients prior to the surgical procedure to determine understanding of the cancer and treatment plan. If randomized to receive a pre-operative 3D model, the survey was completed twice, before and after viewing the 3D model. In addition, the cohort that received 3D models completed additional questions to compare usefulness of the different forms of visualization of the 3D models. Survey responses for each of the 3D model groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxan rank-sum tests.
resultsAll 200 patients completed the survey after reviewing their cases with their surgeons using imaging only. 127 patients completed the 5-point Likert scale survey regarding understanding of disease and surgical procedure twice, once with imaging and again after reviewing imaging plus a 3D model. Patients had a greater understanding using 3D printed models versus imaging for all measures including comprehension of disease, cancer size, cancer location, treatment plan, and the comfort level regarding the treatment plan (range 4.60-4.78/5 vs. 4.06-4.49/5, p < 0.05).
conclusionsAll types of patient-specific 3D models were reported to be valuable for patient education. Out of the three advanced imaging methods, the 3D printed models helped patients to have the greatest understanding of their anatomy, disease, tumor characteristics, and surgical procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.