Cargando…
Utilizing 3D printing to assist pre-procedure planning of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedures: a pilot study
BACKGROUND: 3D (three-dimensional) printing has been adopted by the medical community in several ways, procedure planning being one example. This application of technology has been adopted by several subspecialties including interventional radiology, however the planning of transjugular intrahepatic...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10099647/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37052816 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41205-023-00176-w |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: 3D (three-dimensional) printing has been adopted by the medical community in several ways, procedure planning being one example. This application of technology has been adopted by several subspecialties including interventional radiology, however the planning of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement has not yet been described. The impact of a 3D printed model on procedural measures such as procedure time, radiation exposure, intravascular contrast dosage, fluoroscopy time, and provider confidence has also not been reported. METHODS: This pilot study utilized a quasi-experimental design including patients who underwent TIPS. For the control group, retrospective data was collected on patients who received a TIPS prior to Oct 1, 2020. For the experimental group, patient-specific 3D printed models were integrated in the care of patients that received TIPS between Oct 1, 2020 and April 15, 2021. Data was collected on patient demographics and procedural measures. The interventionalists were surveyed on their confidence level and model usage following each procedure in the experimental group. RESULTS: 3D printed models were created for six TIPS. Procedure time (p = 0.93), fluoroscopy time (p = 0.26), and intravascular contrast dosage (p = 0.75) did not have significant difference between groups. Mean radiation exposure was 808.8 mGy in the group with a model compared to 1731.7 mGy without, however this was also not statistically significant (p = 0.09). Out of 11 survey responses from interventionists, 10 reported “increased” or “significantly increased” confidence after reviewing the 3D printed model and all responded that the models were a valuable tool for trainees. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printed models of patient anatomy can consistently be made using consumer-level, desktop 3D printing technology. This study was not adequately powered to measure the impact that including 3D printed models in the planning of TIPS procedures may have on procedural measures. The majority of interventionists reported that patient-specific models were valuable tools for teaching trainees and that confidence levels increased as a result of model inclusion in procedure planning. |
---|