Articles Vol. 65 No. CĐ 4 - Hội Y học Giới tính Việt Nam 30/05/2024

33. PRELIMINARY OUTCOMES OF LAPAROSCOPIC RENAL TUMOR RESECTION UTILIZING PERSONALIZED 3D-PRINTED KIDNEY MODELS AT E HOSPITAL IN 2021-2024

Nguyen Dinh Lien1,2,3,4, Nguyen The Thinh1,2,3,4, Mai Van Luc2,4, Nguyen Quang1,2,3,4
1 University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vietnam National University
2 E Hospital
3 Trường Đại học Y Dược, Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội
4 Bệnh viện E
Corresponding author: ntthinhqn@gmail.com
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v65iCD4.1182
28 Views
5 Downloads
Keywords
Renal cell carcinoma, partial nephrectomy, laparoscopy, 3D model.
Abstract

 Objectives: To evaluate the surgical outcomes of renal tumor resection using personalized 3D-printed kidney models at Hospital E from 2021 to 2024.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 16 patients who underwent laparoscopic renal tumor resection using personalized 3D-printed kidney models at Hospital E between April 2021 and February 2024 was conducted.

Results: The study included 16 patients, comprising 8 males (50.0%) and 8 females (50.0%). The mean age was 61.7 years, with the majority of patients falling within the 60-69 age group (50%). Nine patients had left-sided renal tumors (56.2%) and seven patients had right-sided renal tumors (43.8%), with lower pole tumors exhibiting the highest prevalence (43.8%). The mean tumor size was 29x26x27mm. The mean surgical duration was 152 minutes. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal approach was employed in the majority of cases (14/16 cases, 87.5%). Three cases required radical nephrectomy (18.75%) due to tumor invasion of the renal pelvis. Open conversion was necessary in 2 cases (12.5%). Postoperative complications occurred in 3 cases (18.75%).

Conclutions: Laparoscopic renal tumor resection utilizing personalized 3D-printed kidney models demonstrated favorable outcomes, characterized by short surgical duration, high nephrectomy preservation rate, and low complication rates.

References
[1]
You C, Du Y, Wang H et al., Laparoscopic versus Google Scholar
[2]
open partial nephrectomy: a systemic review Google Scholar
[3]
and meta-analysis of surgical, oncological, and Google Scholar
[4]
functional outcomes. Frontiers in oncology, Google Scholar
[5]
, 10, 583979. Google Scholar
[6]
Rinott Mizrahi G, Freifeld Y, Klein I et al., Google Scholar
[7]
Comparison of partial and radical laparascopic Google Scholar
[8]
nephrectomy: perioperative and oncologic Google Scholar
[9]
outcomes for clinical T2 renal cell carcinoma. Google Scholar
[10]
Journal of Endourology, 32(10), 2018, 950-954. Google Scholar
[11]
Ock J, Kim T, On S et al., Utilizing patientspecific Google Scholar
[12]
D printed kidney surgical guide with Google Scholar
[13]
realistic phantom for partial nephrectomy. Sci Google Scholar
[14]
Rep. 13(1):15531, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41598- Google Scholar
[15]
-42866-9. PMID: 37726415; PMCID: Google Scholar
[16]
PMC10509158. Google Scholar
[17]
Janssen M, Siemer S., Moderne Google Scholar
[18]
Interventionsplanung in der Nierenchirurgie Google Scholar
[19]
[Intervention planning in modern renal surgery]. Google Scholar
[20]
Urologie. German, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00120- Google Scholar
[21]
-02188-0. Epub ahead of print. PMID: Google Scholar
[22]
Cornejo J, Cornejo-Aguilar JA, Vargas M et Google Scholar
[23]
al., Anatomical Engineering and 3D Printing Google Scholar
[24]
for Surgery and Medical Devices: International Google Scholar
[25]
Review and Future Exponential Innovations. Google Scholar
[26]
Biomed Res Int, 2022:6797745. Google Scholar
[27]
Pavan N., Derweesh IH, Mir CM et al., Outcomes Google Scholar
[28]
of laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy Google Scholar
[29]
for large (> 4 cm) kidney tumors: systematic Google Scholar
[30]
review and meta-analysis. Annals of surgical Google Scholar
[31]
oncology, 24, 2017, 2420-2428. Google Scholar
[32]
Ashrafi AN, Gill IS, Minimally invasive Google Scholar
[33]
radical nephrectomy: a contemporary Google Scholar
[34]
review. Translational Andrology and Google Scholar
[35]
Urology, 9(6), 2020, 3112. Google Scholar