Tahsin Batuhan AYDOĞAN, Mehmet EZER, Emre HURİ

Urologic Surgery in Digital Era: Foresights and Futuristic Approach

The new scientific developments and technological opportunities that have led to significant changes all build up the digital era. In medicine, the use of new technologies in patient diagnosis and treatment processes has opened new horizons for physicians and patients. As considering for the medical training, 3-dimensional modeling opportunities, virtual reality, augmented reality, and various simulators offered by the new technologies of the digital era have become a new hope. The 3-dimensional scanning and modeling, 3-dimensional medical printing, virtual reality technologies applications and simulators in urology are very recent and valuable. Besides, the exoscope-assisted 3-dimensional open surgery provides high-resolution 3-dimensional images to surgeons with high comfort as compared with old-fashioned operating microscopes. New modalities that tried to be integrated in robotic surgery are 3-dimensional reconstruction, usage of indocyanine green, augmented reality, contrast ultrasound, haptic feedback, and availability of single port. Some new companies announced their new robotic systems in the market. The use of these new technological applications during medical training, especially at the beginning of the education curve for various surgical interventions, may be beneficial in terms of reducing possible complications that may be encountered due to inexperience at the beginning of the education process and increasing patient safety. Urology will also stay at the futuristic approach in medicine, while 3-dimensional technologies used more widely in this field.

PDF

___

1. Prior FW. Specifying DICOM compliance for modality interfaces. Radiographics. 1993;13(6):1381-1388. [CrossRef]
2. Tatar İ, Huri E, Selçuk İ, Moon YL, Paoluzzi A, Skolarikos A. Review of the effect of 3D medical printing and virtual reality on urology training with ‘MedTRain3DModsim’ Erasmus+European Union Project. Turk J Med Sci. 2019;49(5):1257-1270. [CrossRef]
3. Parikh N, Sharma P. Three-dimensional printing in urology: history, current applications, and future directions. Urology. 2018;121:3-10. [CrossRef]
4. Hull CW. Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by stereolithography. Google Patents; 1986.
5. Chen MY, Skewes J, Desselle M, et al. Current applications of three‐dimensional printing in urology. BJU Int. 2020;125(1):17-27. [CrossRef]
6. Schubert C, Van Langeveld MC, Donoso LA. Innovations in 3D printing: a 3D overview from optics to organs. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(2):159-161. [CrossRef]
7. Seol YJ, Kang HW, Lee SJ, Atala A, Yoo JJ. Bioprinting technology and its applications. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;46(3):342-348. [CrossRef]
8. Murphy SV, Atala A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32(8):773-785. [CrossRef]
9. Cacciamani GE, Okhunov Z, Meneses AD, et al. Impact of three-dimensional printing in urology: state of the art and future perspectives. A systematic review by ESUTYAUWP group. Eur Urol. 2019;76(2):209-221. [CrossRef]
10. Golab A, Smektala T, Kaczmarek K, Stamirowski R, Hrab M, Slojewski M. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy supported by training involving personalized silicone replica poured in three-dimensional printed casting mold. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27(4):420-422. [CrossRef]
11. Westerman ME, Matsumoto JM, Morris JM, Leibovich BC. Three-dimensional printing for renal cancer and surgical planning. Eur Urol Focus. 2016;2(6):574-576. [CrossRef]
12. Lin C, Gao J, Zheng H, et al. When to introduce three-dimensional visualization technology into surgical residency: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Syst. 2019;43(3):71. [CrossRef]
13. Atalay HA, Ülker V, Alkan İ, Canat HL, Özkuvancı Ü, Altunrende F. Impact of threedimensional printed pelvicaliceal system models on residents’ understanding of pelvicaliceal system anatomy before percutaneous nephrolithotripsy surgery: a pilot study. J Endourol. 2016;30(10):1132-1137. [CrossRef]
14. Atalay HA, Canat HL, Ülker V, Alkan İ, Özkuvanci Ü, Altunrende F. Impact of personalized three-dimensional-3D-printed pelvicalyceal system models on patient information in percutaneous nephrolithotripsy surgery: a pilot study. Int Braz J Urol. 2017;43(3):470-475. [CrossRef]
15. Park CJ, Kim HW, Jeong S, et al. Anti-reflux ureteral stent with polymeric flap valve using three-dimensional printing: an in vitro study. J Endourol. 2015;29(8):933-938. [CrossRef]
16. Del Junco M, Yoon R, Okhunov Z, et al. Comparison of flow characteristics of novel three-dimensional printed ureteral stents versus standard ureteral stents in a porcine model. J Endourol. 2015;29(9):1065-1069. [CrossRef]
17. del Junco M, Okhunov Z, Yoon R, et al. Development and initial porcine and cadaver experience with three-dimensional printing of endoscopic and laparoscopic equipment. J Endourol. 2015;29(1):58-62. [CrossRef]
18. Milgram P, Colquhoun H. A taxonomy of real and virtual world display integration. Mixed Reality: Merging Real Virtual Worlds. 1999;1999(1):1-26.
19. Caudell T, Mizell D. Augmented reality: an application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1992;2(1):659-669. [CrossRef]
20. Parkhomenko E, O’Leary M, Safiullah S, et al. Pilot assessment of immersive virtual reality renal models as an educational and preoperative planning tool for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2019;33(4):283-288. [CrossRef]
21. Aggarwal G, Adhikary SD. Simulators in the urological training armamentarium: a boon or a bane? Arab J Urol. 2017;15(2):166-169. [CrossRef]
22. Ballaro A, Briggs T, Garcia-Montes F, MacDonald D, Emberton M, Mundy AR. A computer generated interactive transurethral prostatic resection simulator. J Urol. 1999;162(5):1633-1635. [CrossRef]
23. Schout BM, Bemelmans BL, Martens EJ, Scherpbier AJ, Hendrikx AJ. How useful and realistic is the uro trainer for training transurethral prostate and bladder tumor resection procedures? J Urol. 2009;181(3):1297-1303; discussion 303. [CrossRef]
24. Schultheiss D, Denil J. History of the microscope and development of microsurgery: a revolution for reproductive tract surgery. Andrologia. 2002;34(4):234-241. [CrossRef]
25. Mamelak AN, Danielpour M, Black KL, Hagike M, Berci G. A high-definition exoscope system for neurosurgery and other microsurgical disciplines: preliminary report. Surg Innov. 2008;15(1):38-46. [CrossRef]
26. Mamelak AN, Nobuto T, Berci G. Initial clinical experience with a high-definition exoscope system for microneurosurgery. Neurosurgery. 2010;67(2):476-483. [CrossRef]
27. Frykman PK, Duel BP, Gangi A, Williams JA, Berci G, Freedman AL. Evaluation of a video telescopic operating microscope (VITOM) for pediatric surgery and urology: a preliminary report. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23(7):639-643. [CrossRef]
28. Rossini Z, Cardia A, Milani D, Lasio GB, Fornari M, D’Angelo V. VITOM 3D: preliminary experience in cranial surgery. World Neurosurg. 2017;107:663-668. [CrossRef]
29. Oertel JM, Burkhardt BW. Vitom-3D for exoscopic neurosurgery: initial experience in cranial and spinal procedures. World Neurosurg. 2017;105:153-162. [CrossRef]
30. Autschbach R, Onnasch JF, Falk V, et al. The Leipzig experience with robotic valve surgery. J Card Surg. 2000;15(1):82-87. [CrossRef]
31. Yates DR, Vaessen C, Roupret M. From Leonardo to da Vinci: the history of robotassisted surgery in urology. BJU Int. 2011;108(11):1708-1713; discussion 14. [CrossRef]
32. Rassweiler JJ, Autorino R, Klein J, et al. Future of robotic surgery in urology. BJU Int. 2017;120(6):822-841. [CrossRef]
33. Dobbs RW, Halgrimson WR, Talamini S, Vigneswaran HT, Wilson JO, Crivellaro S. Single-port robotic surgery: the next generation of minimally invasive urology. World J Urol. 2020;38(4):897-905. [CrossRef]
34. Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, et al. Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU Int. 2003;92(3):232-236. [CrossRef]
35. Gettman MT, Blute ML, Chow GK, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Roboticassisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: technique and initial clinical experience with DaVinci robotic system. Urology. 2004;64(5):914-918. [CrossRef]
36. Falagario U, Veccia A, Weprin S, et al. Robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of urologic cancers: recent advances. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020;17(6):579-590. [CrossRef]
37. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1431-1435. [CrossRef]
38. Checcucci E, De Cillis S, Porpiglia F. 3D-printed models and virtual reality as new tools for image-guided robot-assisted nephron-sparing surgery: a systematic review of the newest evidences. Curr Opin Urol. 2020;30(1):55-64. [CrossRef]