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