Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The surgical treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is highly challenging because of its complex anatomy. In this study, the authors compared the surgical outcomes of patients with RPS who underwent surgical resection guided by three-dimensional (3D) printing technology versus traditional imaging.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 251 patients who underwent RPS resection guided by 3D-printing technology or traditional imaging from January 2019 to December 2022. The main outcome measures were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and hospital stay.
RESULTS: In total, 251 patients were enrolled in the study: 46 received 3D-printed navigation, and 205 underwent traditional surgical methods. Propensity score matching yielded 44 patients in the 3D group and 82 patients in the control group. The patients\' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. The 3D group had significantly shorter operative time (median, 186.5 minutes [interquartile range (IQR), 130.0-251.3 minutes] vs. 210.0 minutes [IQR, 150.8-277.3 minutes]; p = .04), less intraoperative blood loss (median, 300.0 mL [IQR, 100.0-575.0 mL] vs. 375.0 mL [IQR, 200.0-925.0 mL]; p = .02), shorter postoperative hospital stays (median, 11.0 days [IQR, 9.0-13.0 days] vs. 14.0 days [IQR, 10.8-18.3 days]; p = .02), and lower incidence rate of overall postoperative complications than the control group (18.1% vs. 36.6%; p = .03). There were no differences with regard to the intraoperative blood transfusion rate, the R0/R1 resection rate, 30-day mortality, or overall survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the 3D group had favorable surgical outcomes compared with those in the control group. These results suggest that 3D-printing technology might overcome challenges in RPS surgical treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: The surgical treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is highly challenging because of its complex anatomy. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether three-dimensional (3D) printing technology offers advantages over traditional two-dimensional imaging (such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) for guiding the surgical treatment of RPS. In a group of patients who had RPS, surgery guided by 3D-printing technology was associated with better surgical outcomes, including shorter operative time, decreased blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer postoperative complications. These findings suggested that 3D-printing technology could help surgeons overcome challenges in the surgical treatment of RPS. 3D-printing technology has important prospects in the surgical treatment of RPS.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 251 patients who underwent RPS resection guided by 3D-printing technology or traditional imaging from January 2019 to December 2022. The main outcome measures were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and hospital stay.
RESULTS: In total, 251 patients were enrolled in the study: 46 received 3D-printed navigation, and 205 underwent traditional surgical methods. Propensity score matching yielded 44 patients in the 3D group and 82 patients in the control group. The patients\' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. The 3D group had significantly shorter operative time (median, 186.5 minutes [interquartile range (IQR), 130.0-251.3 minutes] vs. 210.0 minutes [IQR, 150.8-277.3 minutes]; p = .04), less intraoperative blood loss (median, 300.0 mL [IQR, 100.0-575.0 mL] vs. 375.0 mL [IQR, 200.0-925.0 mL]; p = .02), shorter postoperative hospital stays (median, 11.0 days [IQR, 9.0-13.0 days] vs. 14.0 days [IQR, 10.8-18.3 days]; p = .02), and lower incidence rate of overall postoperative complications than the control group (18.1% vs. 36.6%; p = .03). There were no differences with regard to the intraoperative blood transfusion rate, the R0/R1 resection rate, 30-day mortality, or overall survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the 3D group had favorable surgical outcomes compared with those in the control group. These results suggest that 3D-printing technology might overcome challenges in RPS surgical treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: The surgical treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is highly challenging because of its complex anatomy. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether three-dimensional (3D) printing technology offers advantages over traditional two-dimensional imaging (such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) for guiding the surgical treatment of RPS. In a group of patients who had RPS, surgery guided by 3D-printing technology was associated with better surgical outcomes, including shorter operative time, decreased blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer postoperative complications. These findings suggested that 3D-printing technology could help surgeons overcome challenges in the surgical treatment of RPS. 3D-printing technology has important prospects in the surgical treatment of RPS.
摘要：
背景：腹膜后肉瘤（RPS）的手术治疗因其复杂的解剖结构而极具挑战性。在这项研究中,作者比较了接受三维(3D)打印技术引导下手术切除的RPS患者与传统影像学的手术结局.
方法：这项回顾性研究包括从2019年1月至2022年12月在3D打印技术或传统成像指导下进行RPS切除术的251例患者。主要结果指标是手术时间，术中失血,术后并发症,住院。
结果：总计，251名患者被纳入研究：46名患者接受了3D打印导航，205人接受了传统的手术方法。倾向评分匹配在3D组中产生了44例患者，在对照组中产生了82例患者。在匹配的队列中，患者的人口统计学和肿瘤特征具有可比性。3D组的手术时间明显较短（中位数，186.5分钟[四分位距（IQR），130.0-251.3分钟]vs.210.0分钟[IQR，150.8-277.3分钟]；p=.04），术中失血减少(中位数，300.0毫升[IQR,100.0-575.0mL]vs.375.0毫升[IQR,200.0-925.0毫升]；p=.02），术后住院时间较短(中位数，11.0天[IQR，9.0-13.0天]vs.14.0天[IQR，10.8-18.3天]；p=.02)，术后总并发症发生率低于对照组（18.1%vs.36.6%；p=0.03）。术中输血率无差异,R0/R1切除率，30天死亡率，或总体生存率。
结论：与对照组相比，3D组患者具有良好的手术效果。这些结果表明，3D打印技术可能克服RPS手术治疗中的挑战。
结论：腹膜后肉瘤（RPS）的手术治疗因其复杂的解剖结构而极具挑战性。这项研究的目的是研究三维（3D）打印技术是否比传统的二维成像（例如计算机断层扫描和磁共振成像）具有优势，可以指导RPS的手术治疗。在一组患有RPS的患者中，3D打印技术引导下的手术与更好的手术效果相关，包括更短的手术时间，减少失血,缩短住院时间,术后并发症少。这些发现表明，3D打印技术可以帮助外科医生克服RPS手术治疗中的挑战。3D打印技术在RPS的外科治疗中具有重要的应用前景。
方法：这项回顾性研究包括从2019年1月至2022年12月在3D打印技术或传统成像指导下进行RPS切除术的251例患者。主要结果指标是手术时间，术中失血,术后并发症,住院。
结果：总计，251名患者被纳入研究：46名患者接受了3D打印导航，205人接受了传统的手术方法。倾向评分匹配在3D组中产生了44例患者，在对照组中产生了82例患者。在匹配的队列中，患者的人口统计学和肿瘤特征具有可比性。3D组的手术时间明显较短（中位数，186.5分钟[四分位距（IQR），130.0-251.3分钟]vs.210.0分钟[IQR，150.8-277.3分钟]；p=.04），术中失血减少(中位数，300.0毫升[IQR,100.0-575.0mL]vs.375.0毫升[IQR,200.0-925.0毫升]；p=.02），术后住院时间较短(中位数，11.0天[IQR，9.0-13.0天]vs.14.0天[IQR，10.8-18.3天]；p=.02)，术后总并发症发生率低于对照组（18.1%vs.36.6%；p=0.03）。术中输血率无差异,R0/R1切除率，30天死亡率，或总体生存率。
结论：与对照组相比，3D组患者具有良好的手术效果。这些结果表明，3D打印技术可能克服RPS手术治疗中的挑战。
结论：腹膜后肉瘤（RPS）的手术治疗因其复杂的解剖结构而极具挑战性。这项研究的目的是研究三维（3D）打印技术是否比传统的二维成像（例如计算机断层扫描和磁共振成像）具有优势，可以指导RPS的手术治疗。在一组患有RPS的患者中，3D打印技术引导下的手术与更好的手术效果相关，包括更短的手术时间，减少失血,缩短住院时间,术后并发症少。这些发现表明，3D打印技术可以帮助外科医生克服RPS手术治疗中的挑战。3D打印技术在RPS的外科治疗中具有重要的应用前景。
