Clinical applications of 3D printing in colorectal surgery: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of three-dimensional printing has grown rapidly within the field of surgery over recent years. Within the subspecialty of colorectal surgery, the technology has been used to create personalized anatomical models for preoperative planning, models for surgical training, and occasionally customized implantable devices and surgical instruments. We aim to provide a systematic review of the current literature discussing clinical applications of three-dimensional printing in colorectal surgery. METHODS: Full-text studies published in English which described the application of 3D printing in pre-surgical planning, advanced surgical planning, and patient education within the field of colorectal surgery were included. Exclusion criteria were duplicate articles, review papers, studies exclusively dealing with surgical training and/or education, studies which used only virtual models, and studies which described colorectal cancer only as it pertained to other organs. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in this review. There were two randomized controlled trials, one retrospective outcomes study, five case reports/series, one animal model, and nine technical notes/feasibility studies. There were three studies on advanced surgical planning/device manufacturing, six on pre-surgical planning, two on pelvic anatomy modeling, eight on various types of anatomy modeling, and one on patient education. CONCLUSIONS: While more studies with a higher level of evidence are needed, the findings of this review suggest many promising applications of three-dimensional printing within the field of colorectal surgery with the potential to improve patient outcomes and experiences.

Just the gastrointestinal stromal tumor: A case report of medical modeling of a rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor.

A 54-year-old African-American male presented to the colorectal surgery clinic with the chief complaint of a painful anal swelling that had been ongoing for several weeks. An adequate rectal examination was not possible due to severe pain. Therefore, he was taken to the operating room for an exam under anesthesia where a presacral mass was identified. A transgluteal core needle biopsy was performed which was consistent with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Computed tomography imaging identified a 16 cm ×10 cm ×9 cmrectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Given the size and location, the patient began treatment with neoadjuvant Imatinib. His progress was followed with serial computed tomography scans and clinic visits. A 3D model was created the tumor and surrounding structures to aide in pre- and intraoperative planning. The model was utilized during patient education and found to valuable in describing the potential for levator invasion and framing potential post-operative outcomes. The patient was able to undergo rectal preservation via a robotic low anterior resection with a transanal total mesorectal excision, coloanal anastomosis, and diverting ileostomy.

Comparing Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Colectomy at Veteran Affairs Hospitals and Non-Veteran Affairs Hospitals: A Multiinstitutional Study.

INTRODUCTION: The Veteran Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) are large databases designed to measure surgical outcomes for their respective populations. We sought to compare surgical outcomes in patients undergoing colectomies at Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals versus non-VA hospitals. METHODS: After institutional review baord approval, records for 271,523 colectomies from NSQIP and 11,597 from VASQIP between the years 2015 and 2019 were compiled. Demographics, comorbidity, 30-d mortality, and other outcomes were examined using Chi-squared, analysis of variance, Mann Whitney U, and Fisher's Exact Test within SPSS version 26. RESULTS: VASQIP patients were more likely to be male (94.3% versus 48.4%, P < 0.001) and older (median 63, 52-72 versus 67, 60-72 P < 0.001). Veterans were also more likely to have diabetes (25.3% versus 15.8%, P < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (15.4% versus 5.5%, P < 0.001), and congestive heart failure (17.0% versus 1.3%, P < 0.001). Veterans had slightly better 30-d mortality (2.4% versus 2.8%, P = 0.003), less organ space infections (2.8% versus 5.8%, P < 0.001), or postoperative sepsis (3.4% versus 5.3%). Non-VA patients were more likely to be having emergent surgery (13.4% versus 9.6%, P < 0.001) or undergo a laparoscopic approach (57.9% versus 50.2%, P < 0.001). Non-VA patients had shorter postoperative length of stay (5.99 d versus 7.32 d, P < 0.001) and were less likely to return to the operating room (5.3% versus 8.4%, P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased comorbidity, VA hospitals and hospitals enrolled in NSQIP have managed to achieve markedly similar rates of 30-d mortality following colectomy. Further study is needed to better understand the differences between both the populations and surgical outcomes between VA hospitals and non-VA hospitals.