Skip to content

Value of 3D Printing for Comprehension of Liver Surgical Anatomy

Value of 3D Printing for Comprehension of Liver Surgical Anatomy

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03153332
Enrollment
59
Registered
2017-05-15
Start date
2017-07-01
Completion date
2018-01-10
Last updated
2018-01-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Liver Cancer

Brief summary

To our knowledge, it has not been analyze whether 3D printed liver model would improve the perception of a given liver tumor or the precision of operation planning in liver surgery. We design this prospective controlled trial to test whether the 3D-printed patient specific liver model could be more informative than standard MDCT (multi-row detector computed tomography ) and 3D visualization system in predicting the surgical anatomy of liver.

Detailed description

The primary objective was to investigate whether 3D printing can improve localization of hepatic pathology. The secondary objective was to investigate whether 3D printing can improve the precision of surgical proposal. The dataset of patients were prepared and stratified into MDCT, 3D visualization system and 3D printed liver model groups. The process started from MDCT scan image acquisition and moved through image segmentation and 3D rendering to end up with 3D printing. Surgical residents were assigned to three different groups to study different modes of patients' data. Residents were ask to state the liver segment in which the tumor resides and make a minimal resection proposal, including the tumor, the safety margin (1cm) and the dependent liver tissue. Residents were recommended to proceed in a classic way by resecting the whole liver segment. The time spent by each resident was also recorded in order to assess the quickness of comprehension and information transfer of the three different modes of presentation.

Interventions

OTHERsurgical residents' comprehension of the hepatic anatomy

Surgical residents were assigned to three different groups to evaluate different modes of patients' data. Residents were ask to state the liver segment in which the tumor resided and make a minimal resection proposal, including the tumor, the safety margin (1cm) and the dependent liver tissue. Residents were recommended to proceed in a classic way by resecting the whole liver segment. The time spent by each resident was also recorded in order to assess the quickness of comprehension and information transfer of the three different modes of presentation.

Sponsors

The Fifth People's Hospital of Dongguan City
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine
CollaboratorOTHER
Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
OTHER
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Surgical residents * Must had experiences with MDCT and 3D visualization system

Exclusion criteria

* Non surgical residents * No experiences with MDCT or 3D visualization system

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
The primary outcomes was the precise allocation of hepatic diseaseThe primary outcome was assessed within 1 week after the collection of each participants' response.For tumor allocation to the liver segments, 8 points were awarded if all segments were correctly identified in which the tumors resided. If the tumors was located in more than one segment, the 8 maximal achievable points were divided between these segments. Erroneously identified segments were awarded 0 point. Alternatively, the primary outcomes were also simply judged as right or wrong according to the final surgical results.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Resection proposal of liver pathologyThe secondary outcome was assessed within 1 week after the collection of each participants' response.he resection proposals on the liver were compared with surgical results that had been evaluated by surgeons and judged by the formula mentioned earlier.
Time spent to judge tumor locationThe secondary outcome was assessed within 1 week after the collection of each participants' response.The time spend to assess tumor location by each resident was documented as seconds

Countries

China

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026