4.7 Article

Utilizing patient-specific 3D printed guides for graft reconstruction in thoracoabdominal aortic repair

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-97541-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) - Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI18C2383]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The new techniques for repairing thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms using patient-specific 3D-printed graft reconstruction guides have effectively addressed the challenges in positioning and guiding the visceral and segmental arteries. Evaluation based on accuracy, marking time, reproducibility, and surgeon feedback has demonstrated the efficiency and efficacy of these techniques in accurately reconstructing customized grafts.
In thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair, repairing the visceral and segmental arteries is challenging. Although there is a pre-hand-sewn and multi-branched graft based on the conventional image-based technique, it has shortcomings in precisely positioning and directing the visceral and segmental arteries. Here, we introduce two new reconstruction techniques using patient-specific 3D-printed graft reconstruction guides: (1) model-based technique that presents the projected aortic graft, visualizing the main aortic body and its major branches and (2) guide-based technique in which the branching vessels in the visualization model are replaced by marking points identifiable by tactile sense. We demonstrate the effectiveness by evaluating conventional and new techniques based on accuracy, marking time requirement, reproducibility, and results of survey to surgeons on the perceived efficiency and efficacy. The graft reconstruction guides cover the segmentation, design, fabrication, post-processing, and clinical application of open surgical repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysm, and proved to be efficient for accurately reconstructing customized grafts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据