4.2 Article

Three-dimensional printing enhances preparation for repair of double outlet right ventricular surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 24-27

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jocs.13523

关键词

3D printing technology; congenital heart disease; double outlet right ventricle

资金

  1. Programs for Medical Science and Technology Development of Henan Province [162102310023]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the clinical value of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology for treatment strategies for complex double outlet right ventricle (DORV). Methods: Twenty-five patients with complex double outlet right ventricle were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: 3D printing group (eight patients) and a non-3-D printing control group (17 patients). The cardiac images of patients in the 3D printing group were transformed to Digital Imaging and Communications and were segmented and reconstructed to create a heart model. No cardiac models were created in the control group. A Pearson coefficient analysis was used to assess the correlation between measurements of 3D printed models and computed tomography angiography (CTA) data. Pre-operative assessment and planning were performed with 3D printed models, and then operative time and recovery time were compared between the two groups. Results: There was good correlation (r = 0.977) between 3D printed models and CTA data. Patients in the 3D printing group had shorter aortic cross-clamp time (102.88 vs 127.76 min, P = 0.094) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (151.63 vs 184.24 min; P = 0.152) than patients in the control group. Patients with 3D printed models had significantly lower mechanical ventilation time (56.43 vs 96.76 h, P = 0.040) and significantly shorter intensive care unit time (99.04 vs 166.94 h, P = 0.008) than patients in the control group. Conclusions: 3D printed models can accurately demonstrate anatomic structures and are useful for pre-operative treatment strategies in DORV.

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

4.2
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