V10-02 SINGLE-PORT TRANSVESICAL PARTIAL PROSTATECTOMY: PREOPERATIVE SURGICAL PLANNING USING A 3D PRINTED MODEL

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023V10-02 SINGLE-PORT TRANSVESICAL PARTIAL PROSTATECTOMY: PREOPERATIVE SURGICAL PLANNING USING A 3D PRINTED MODEL Ethan Ferguson, Jason Scovell, Roxana Ramos, Albert Geskin, Jay Chavali, Andres Purysko, and Jihad Kaouk Ethan FergusonEthan Ferguson More articles by this author , Jason ScovellJason Scovell More articles by this author , Roxana RamosRoxana Ramos More articles by this author , Albert GeskinAlbert Geskin More articles by this author , Jay ChavaliJay Chavali More articles by this author , Andres PuryskoAndres Purysko More articles by this author , and Jihad KaoukJihad Kaouk More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003328.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Surgical simulation using 3D printed prostate and kidney models has been developed with proposed benefits in pre-operative planning, training, and patient education. Single-port (SP) transvesical partial prostatectomy has been performed in highly selected patients with localized intermediate risk prostate cancer as an alternative to focal therapy. We sought to record our experience and outcomes of SP transvesical partial prostatectomy using a 3D printed model of the bladder and prostate. METHODS: An otherwise healthy and potent 59 year-old patient was selected with localized Gleason 3+4=7 prostate cancer, arising from a MRI-visible lesion in the left anterior prostate gland and no other positive biopsies. Segmentation of the preoperative prostate MRI was done to isolate the bladder, prostate, prostatic urethra, and DVC. Using this information, a 1:1 scale 3D printed model was created. A rehearsal procedure was performed on the model using the DaVinci SP surgical system prior to the patient’s operation. RESULTS: Transvesical access, docking, catheter insertion, partial prostate excision, and vesico-urethral reconstruction were able to be simulated using the 3D model. On the day of surgery, lesion excision was carried out with assistance of fused MRI and ultrasound images for intraoperative guidance. Pathology showed Gleason 3+4 disease. The patient achieved negative margins despite incidental focal extraprostatic extension and was discharged on the same day of the procedure. The foley catheter was removed on postoperative day 3. He was fully continent immediately following foley catheter removal and regained full potency within one week of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: A 3D printed model of the bladder and prostate can be used to simulate partial prostatectomy prior to the in-vivo operation. This has potential benefits in surgical planning and education, though challenges include simulation of patient physiology such as bleeding and the cost of materials. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e926 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ethan Ferguson More articles by this author Jason Scovell More articles by this author Roxana Ramos More articles by this author Albert Geskin More articles by this author Jay Chavali More articles by this author Andres Purysko More articles by this author Jihad Kaouk More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...