MP33-03 3D-PRINTED PHANTOMS TO QUANTIFY ACCURACY AND VARIABILITY OF GONIOMETRIC AND VOLUMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF PEYRONIE'S DISEASE DEFORMITIES

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Peyronie's Disease (MP33)1 Apr 2020MP33-03 3D-PRINTED PHANTOMS TO QUANTIFY ACCURACY AND VARIABILITY OF GONIOMETRIC AND VOLUMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF PEYRONIE'S DISEASE DEFORMITIES Dyvon Walker*, Renea Sturm, Doug Daniels, Jesse Mills, and Sriram Eleswarapu Dyvon Walker*Dyvon Walker* More articles by this author , Renea SturmRenea Sturm More articles by this author , Doug DanielsDoug Daniels More articles by this author , Jesse MillsJesse Mills More articles by this author , and Sriram EleswarapuSriram Eleswarapu More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000877.03AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Characterization of Peyronie’s disease (PD) deformities involves manual goniometry and measurement of penile length. These techniques neglect volume loss or hourglass, a source of bother. Inter-provider variability complicates accuracy. Using standardized 3D-printed models, we aimed to evaluate accuracy and variability in measurement and establish a workflow for computational assessment including volumetrics. METHODS: Five 3D phantoms were created digitally (Fig. 1A): 13.0 cm cylinder, 13.0 cm hourglass cylinder, 15.0 cm cylinder with 40° angulation, 12.0 cm straight penis, and 12.9 cm PD penis with 68° angulation and hourglass. Lengths, volumes, and curvature angles were determined computationally to serve as standards. Each phantom was printed using a Makerbot Replicator+. Ten urology providers determined length, angle, and volume of phantoms using measuring tape, goniometer, and volume calculator. Means ± SD were calculated. To determine accuracy, depending on data distribution, a t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare provider-determined vs. computationally acquired measurements. RESULTS: Data are in Fig. 1B. Lengths for cylinder, hourglass cylinder, angled cylinder, straight penis, and PD penis were 12.9 ± 0.9 cm (p=0.0003), 12.9 ± 1.61 cm (p=0.058), 15.0 ± 4.3 cm (p=0.52), 12.0 ± 2.3 (p=0.68), and 12.7 ± 10.8 (p=0.36), respectively. Volumes were 174 ± 22 cc (p=0.003), 150 ± 24 cc (p=0.0008), 186 ± 33 cc (p=0.004), 101 ± 23 cc (p=0.16), and 87 ± 11 cc (p=0.23), respectively. Curvature angles from bent cylinder and PD phantoms were 38.3° ± 3.9° (p=0.25) and 57.5° ± 7.2° (p=0.006), respectively. Discrepancy between goniometry and computationally determined angle ranged 3° to 13°. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest urology providers’ measurements suffer from inaccuracy and variability, particularly in volume estimation and PD goniometry. A computational workflow may be useful for the clinical and research armamentarium when greater accuracy or volume assessment is needed. Further work using 3D image-capture techniques (Siapno et al., SPU 2019) may allow translation to patient evaluation. Source of Funding: Research Grant from Sexual Medicine Society of North America; Research Scholar Award from the Urology Care Foundation & American Urological Association. © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e495-e495 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Dyvon Walker* More articles by this author Renea Sturm More articles by this author Doug Daniels More articles by this author Jesse Mills More articles by this author Sriram Eleswarapu More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...