ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Teaching and evolution in surgical planning of robotic partial nephrectomy with 3D printing models.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the contribution of 3D printing to the teaching and development of robotic partial nephrectomy (RNP) for renal tumors. Evaluation of results in planning the technique, which may vary depending on the professional performing it. A prospective study involving 32 patients who were susceptible to undergoing RPN for renal tumor. Surgical planning (SP) by senior, junior, and resident surgeons was analyzed based on three variables: (1) Tomography (2D), (2) Three-dimensional (3D) tomography, and (3) With a 3D printed model. Three consecutive pre-surgery SP questionnaires were administered. A usability test was completed after surgery. The cohort has a high R.E.N.A.L. score (41% intermediate and 21% high). The use of the 3D printed model changes the SP relative to the CT image by 25.60% and 20.11% with the 3D CT image. The SP factor that varies the most with 3D printing is that related to vascular anatomy (43.84% - 56.82%), followed by assessment of tumor depth (37.67% - 43.18%). Senior urologists modified the vascular hilum passage by up to 63.16%, compared to less than 12.5% by junior urologists. Feelings of security (55.3%), stress (4%), assessment of vascular anatomy (58.9%), tumor depth (36.45%), and surgical time (30.4%) improved. 3D printing influences planning regardless of the professional level, improves safety, and decreases surgical time. Senior surgeons significantly modify the SP more when assessing vascular anatomy by proposing more advanced surgeries.
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.