ArticleWorld journal of urology2022
How specific are patient-specific simulations? Analyzing the accuracy of 3D-printing and modeling to create patient-specific rehearsals for complex urological procedures.
Article in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Application of animal organ models in laparoscopic surgery training: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled 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
- Digital twin-enabled robotic surgery: a bibliometric and knowledge-mapping analysis from patient-specific simulation to autonomy and clinical translation.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Implementation of surgical rehearsal utilizing patient specific hydrogel kidney phantoms prior to complex renal cancer surgery: a pilot study.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Optimized reusable modular 3D-printed models of choledochal cyst to simulate laparoscopic and robotic bilioenteric anastomosis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Simulation and Training in Robot-Assisted Urological Surgery: From Model to Patient.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Developing a phantom for simulating robotic-assisted complete mesocolic excision using 3D printing and medical imaging.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Navigating the intersection of 3D printing, software regulation and quality control for point-of-care manufacturing of personalized anatomical models.3D printing in medicine · 2023Article
- New imaging technologies for robotic kidney cancer surgery.Asian journal of urology · 2022Review
- Patient specific simulation in urology: where are we now and what does the future look like?World journal of urology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn the field of urology, 3D printing and modeling are now regularly utilized to enhance pre-operative planning, surgical training, patient-specific rehearsals (PSR), and patient education and counseling. Widespread accessibility and affordability of such technologies necessitates development of quality control measures to confirm the anatomical accuracy of these tools. Herein, we present three methods utilized to evaluate the anatomical accuracy of hydrogel PSR, developed using 3D printing and molding for pre-operative surgical rehearsals, of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).
methodsVirtual computer-aided designs (CADs) of patient anatomy were created through segmentation of patient CT scan images. Ten patient-specific RAPN and PCNL hydrogel models were CT scanned and segmented to create a corresponding model CAD. The part compare tool (3-matic, Materialize), point-to-point measurements, and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) analyzed surface geometry, alignment, and volumetric overlap of each model component.
resultsGeometries of the RAPN parenchyma, tumor, artery, vein, and pelvicalyceal system lay within an average deviation of 2.5 mm (DSC = 0.70) of the original patient geometry and 5 mm (DSC = 0.45) of the original patient alignment. Similarly, geometries of the PCNL pelvicalyceal system and stone lay within 2.5 mm (DSC = 0.6) and within 15 mm (16% deviation) in alignment. This process enabled the refinement of our modeling process to fabricate anatomically accurate RAPN and PCNL PSR.
conclusionAs 3D printing and modeling continues to have a greater impact on patient care, confirming anatomical accuracy should be introduced as a quality control measure prior to use for patient care.
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.