See the published version of this preprint at World Journal of Surgical Oncology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Three-dimensional (3D) CT reconstruction technology has gained increasing attention owing to its potential in locating ground glass nodules in the lung. The 3D printing technology additionally allows visualising the surrounding anatomical structure and variations. However, the clinical utility of these techniques is not known. We aimed to establish a lung tumour and an anatomical lung model using three-dimensional (3D) printing and 3D chest computed tomography (CT) reconstruction and to evaluate the clinical potential of 3D printing technology in uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy.
Methods
Eighty-nine patients with ground glass nodules who underwent uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy were divided into the following groups: Group A, lung models for pre-positioning and simulated surgery that were made with 3D chest CT reconstruction and 3D printing; Group B, patients who underwent chest CT scans with image enhancement for 3D reconstruction. The differences in the surgery approach transfer rate, surgical method conversion rate, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complication rate were compared between the groups.
Results
The surgery approach transfer rate was 0% and 10.5% for Groups A and B, respectively, showing a significant difference (p = 0.030). The operative time was 2.07 ± 0.24 hours and 2.55 ± 0.41 hours, respectively, showing a significant difference (p<༜0.001). Intraoperative blood loss volume was 43.25 ± 13.63 and 96.68 ± 32.82 ml, respectively, showing a significant difference (p<༜0.001). The postoperative complication rate was 3.9% and 13.2%, respectively, showing a non-significant difference (P = 0.132). The rate of surgical method conversion to lobectomy in Group A was 0%, which was significantly lower than that of 10.5% in group B (p < 0.030).
Conclusions
3D printing technology helps surgeons to locate the nodules more accurately, as it is based on 2D and 3D imaging findings, thereby improving the accuracy and safety of surgery. This technique is worth for application in clinical practice.
Trial registration:
Retrospectively registered.
Keywords
3D printing technique, Position, Ground glass nodule, Thoracoscopic segmentectomy
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at World Journal of Surgical Oncology.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 10 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 08 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 08 Aug, 2020
Version 1
Posted 05 May, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 09 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 28 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 27 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 08 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Apr, 2020
First submitted
On 25 Apr, 2020
Version (no preprint)
Posted 05 May, 2020
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 12 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 29 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 24 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 21 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 20 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 20 Jun, 2020
This version was not preprinted
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at World Journal of Surgical Oncology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at World Journal of Surgical Oncology.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 10 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 08 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 08 Aug, 2020
Version 1
Posted 05 May, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 09 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 28 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 27 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 08 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Apr, 2020
First submitted
On 25 Apr, 2020
Version (no preprint)
Posted 05 May, 2020
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 12 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 29 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 24 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 21 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 20 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 20 Jun, 2020
This version was not preprinted
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at World Journal of Surgical Oncology.
Background
Three-dimensional (3D) CT reconstruction technology has gained increasing attention owing to its potential in locating ground glass nodules in the lung. The 3D printing technology additionally allows visualising the surrounding anatomical structure and variations. However, the clinical utility of these techniques is not known. We aimed to establish a lung tumour and an anatomical lung model using three-dimensional (3D) printing and 3D chest computed tomography (CT) reconstruction and to evaluate the clinical potential of 3D printing technology in uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy.
Methods
Eighty-nine patients with ground glass nodules who underwent uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy were divided into the following groups: Group A, lung models for pre-positioning and simulated surgery that were made with 3D chest CT reconstruction and 3D printing; Group B, patients who underwent chest CT scans with image enhancement for 3D reconstruction. The differences in the surgery approach transfer rate, surgical method conversion rate, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complication rate were compared between the groups.
Results
The surgery approach transfer rate was 0% and 10.5% for Groups A and B, respectively, showing a significant difference (p = 0.030). The operative time was 2.07 ± 0.24 hours and 2.55 ± 0.41 hours, respectively, showing a significant difference (p<༜0.001). Intraoperative blood loss volume was 43.25 ± 13.63 and 96.68 ± 32.82 ml, respectively, showing a significant difference (p<༜0.001). The postoperative complication rate was 3.9% and 13.2%, respectively, showing a non-significant difference (P = 0.132). The rate of surgical method conversion to lobectomy in Group A was 0%, which was significantly lower than that of 10.5% in group B (p < 0.030).
Conclusions
3D printing technology helps surgeons to locate the nodules more accurately, as it is based on 2D and 3D imaging findings, thereby improving the accuracy and safety of surgery. This technique is worth for application in clinical practice.
Trial registration:
Retrospectively registered.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...