The Use of Three-dimensional Visualization Techniques for Prostate Procedures: A Systematic Review

Shu Wang; James Frisbie; Zachery Keepers; Zachary Bolten; Anjana Hevaganinge; Emad Boctor; Simon Leonard; Junichi Tokuda; Axel Krieger; Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui

doi:10.1016/j.euf.2020.08.002

The Use of Three-dimensional Visualization Techniques for Prostate Procedures: A Systematic Review

Eur Urol Focus. 2021 Nov;7(6):1274-1286. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.08.002. Epub 2020 Aug 29.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
² Bio-Imaging and Machine Vision Lab, Fischell Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
³ Department of Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
⁴ Laboratory for Computational Sensing and Robotics, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
⁵ Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
⁶ Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
⁷ Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Veterans Affairs Maryland Healthcare System, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: msiddiqui@som.umaryland.edu.

PMID: 32873515
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.08.002

Abstract

Context: As an emerging technique, three-dimensional (3D) visualization has become more popular and can facilitate education, training, surgical planning, and intraoperative guidance for prostate cancer surgery.

Objective: In this review, we aim to present the impact of 3D printing, virtual reality (VR), and augmented reality (AR) techniques for prostate cancer procedures, specifically prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP).

Evidence acquisition: A systematic review was performed by two investigators according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria.

Evidence synthesis: A total of 541 papers were identified in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Of these, 53 studies were identified for detailed review and 25 were qualified. Two more studies were identified from the references; thus, 27 studies were finally included in this systematic review. Nine papers reported on the use of 3D reconstructed models, mainly in education/training and intraoperative guidance; nine reported on VR, focusing on simulation training model and intraoperative guidance; and nine reported on AR technique with its best indication for surgical guidance in robotic RP.

Conclusions: Three-dimensional visualization techniques have gradually been introduced and developed in prostate procedures, and demonstrate potential utility not only for education/training, but also for surgical planning and intraoperative guidance. Prospective studies are needed to demonstrate clinical utility and validation of these technologies.

Patient summary: Despite low-quality evidence, promising signals were identified to demonstrate that three-dimensional visualization could help facilitate prostate procedures, in terms of education/training, surgical planning, and intraoperative guidance. It is still in a very early stage, and more studies need to be conducted to justify its widespread use.

Keywords: Augmented reality; Prostate biopsy; Prostatectomy; Three-dimensional printing; Virtual reality.

Publication types

Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Review
Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional / methods
Male
Prostate / diagnostic imaging
Prostate / pathology
Prostate / surgery
Prostatectomy / methods
Prostatic Neoplasms* / diagnostic imaging
Prostatic Neoplasms* / pathology
Prostatic Neoplasms* / surgery
Robotic Surgical Procedures* / methods

Grants and funding

R21 CA213020/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States