Three-Dimensional Visualization With Virtual Reality Facilitates Complex Live Donor Renal Transplant

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Wolfe RA,
   2. Ashby VB,
   3. Milford EL,
   4. et al.

   Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(23):1725-1730. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199912023412303

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Kocot A,
   2. Giessing M

   . Increasing the donor and recipient pool-expanded criteria in living kidney donors. Transplant Proc. 2013;45(3):1245-1247. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2013.02.025

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
3. 3.
   1. Liyanage L,
   2. Muzaale AD,
   3. Henderson ML,
   4. Durand CM

   . Living kidney donation in individuals with hepatitis C and HIV infection: rationale and emerging evidence. Curr Transplant Rep. 2019;6(2):167-176. doi: 10.1007/s40472-019-00242-5

   OpenUrlCrossRef
4. 4.↵
   1. Holscher CM,
   2. Jackson KR,
   3. Segev DL

   . Transplanting the untransplantable. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;75(1):114-123. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.04.025

   OpenUrlCrossRef
5. 5.↵
   1. Paragi PR,
   2. Klaassen Z,
   3. Fletcher HS,
   4. et al.

   Vascular constraints in laparoscopic renal allograft: comparative analysis of multiple and single renal arteries in 976 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies. World J Surg. 2011;35(9):2159-2166. doi: 10.1007/s00268-011-1168-6

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Fedorov A,
   2. Beichel R,
   3. Kalpathy-Cramer J,
   4. et al.

   3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1323-1341. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Lentine KL,
   2. Lam NN,
   3. Axelrod D,
   4. et al.

   Perioperative complications after living kidney donation: a national study. Am J Transplant. 2016;16(6):1848-1857. doi: 10.1111/ajt.13687

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Mastrocostas K,
   2. Chingkoe CM,
   3. Pace KT,
   4. et al.

   Computed tomography identified factors that preclude living kidney donation. Can Urol Assoc J. 2018;12(8):276-279. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.4909

   OpenUrlCrossRef
9. 9.↵
   1. O'Neill DC,
   2. Murphy B,
   3. Carmody E,
   4. et al.

   Assessment of renal vascular anatomy on multi-detector computed tomography in living renal donors. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2020;64(4):484-489. doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.13050

   OpenUrlCrossRef
10. 10.↵
    1. Sarier M,
    2. Callioglu M,
    3. Yuksel Y,
    4. Duman E,
    5. Emek M,
    6. Usta SS

    . Evaluation of the renal arteries of 2,144 living kidney donors using computed tomography angiography and comparison with intraoperative findings. Urol Int. 2020;104(7-8):637-640. doi: 10.1159/000507796

    OpenUrlCrossRef
11. 11.↵
    1. Cicek SK,
    2. Ergun S,
    3. Akıncı O,
    4. Sarıyar M

    . Renal vascular and ureteral anatomic variations in 1859 potential living renal donors. Transplant Proc. 2021;53(7):2153-2156. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2021.07.030

    OpenUrlCrossRef
12. 12.↵
    1. Hua L,
    2. Sebben R,
    3. Olakkengil S,
    4. Russell C,
    5. Coates T,
    6. Bhattacharjya S

    . Correlation between computed tomography volumetry and nuclear medicine split renal function in live kidney donation: a single-centre experience. ANZ J Surg. 2020;90(7-8):1347-1351. doi: 10.1111/ans.16087

    OpenUrlCrossRef
13. 13.↵
    1. Barbas AS,
    2. Li Y,
    3. Zair M,
    4. et al.

    CT volumetry is superior to nuclear renography for prediction of residual kidney function in living donors. Clin Transplant. 2016;30(9):1028-1035. doi: 10.1111/ctr.12784

    OpenUrlCrossRef
14. 14.↵
    1. Wake N,
    2. Wysock JS,
    3. Bjurlin MA,
    4. Chandarana H,
    5. Huang WC

    . "Pin the tumor on the kidney:" an evaluation of how surgeons translate CT and MRI data to 3D models. Urology. 2019;131:255-261. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.06.016

    OpenUrlCrossRef
15. 15.↵
    1. Sampogna G,
    2. Pugliese R,
    3. Elli M,
    4. Vanzulli A,
    5. Forgione A

    . Routine clinical application of virtual reality in abdominal surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2017;26(3):135-143. doi: 10.1080/13645706.2016.1275016

    OpenUrlCrossRef
16. 16.↵
    1. Xie L,
    2. O'Leary M,
    3. Jefferson FA,
    4. et al.

    Interactive virtual reality renal models as an educational and preoperative planning tool for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology. 2021;153:192-198. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.12.046

    OpenUrlCrossRef
17. 17.↵
    1. Yamanaga S,
    2. Rosario A,
    3. Fernandez D,
    4. et al.

    Inferior long-term graft survival after end-to-side reconstruction for two renal arteries in living donor renal transplantation. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0199629. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199629

    OpenUrlCrossRef
18. 18.↵
    1. Cooper M,
    2. Kramer A,
    3. Nogueira JM,
    4. Phelan M

    . Recipient outcomes of dual and multiple renal arteries following 1000 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies at a single institution. Clin Transplant. 2013;27(2):261-266. doi: 10.1111/ctr.12062

    OpenUrlCrossRef
19. 19.↵
    1. Denizet G,
    2. Calame P,
    3. Lihoreau T,
    4. Kleinclauss F,
    5. Aubry S

    . 3D multi-tissue printing for kidney transplantation. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2019;9(1):101-106. doi: 10.21037/qims.2018.10.16

    OpenUrlCrossRef
20. 20.↵
    1. Silberstein JL,
    2. Maddox MM,
    3. Dorsey P,
    4. Feibus A,
    5. Thomas R,
    6. Lee BR

    . Physical models of renal malignancies using standard cross-sectional imaging and 3-dimensional printers: a pilot study. Urology. 2014;84(2):268-272. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.03.042

    OpenUrlCrossRef
21. 21.↵
    1. Wake N,
    2. Rosenkrantz AB,
    3. Huang R,
    4. et al.

    Patient-specific 3D printed and augmented reality kidney and prostate cancer models: impact on patient education. 3D Print Med. 2019;5(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s41205-019-0041-3

    OpenUrlCrossRef