{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05604075691411936, 'fraction_numerical': 0.042212518195050945, 'mean_word_length': 5.221719457013575, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Comparison of preoperative planning of radioactive seed implantation for pelvic wall recurrent gynecological malignant tumors between 3D-printing non-coplanar template and 3D-printing coplanar template].

Objective: To compare the difference of preoperative planning parameters between 3D-printing non-coplanar template (3D-PNCT) and 3D-printing coplanar template (3D-PCT) in the treatment of pelvic wall recurrent gynecological malignant tumor with radioactive seeds implantation, and to guide the clinical application. Methods: From January 2016 to March 2018, 33 patients with pelvic wall recurrent gynecological malignant tumor were treated with radioactive seeds implantation assisted by 3D-printing template and in Peking University Third Hospital. All patients underwent 3D-PNCT and 3D-PCT preoperative planning. The D(90) of target remained similar for the same patient. The parameters were compared with Wilcoxon test or Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: D(90) was similar between the two groups (P>0.05). The number of inserting needles through intestine and bone in 3D-PNCT group was less than that in 3D-PCT group (0 (0-13), 0 (0-25), Z=-2.941, P<0.05;0 (0-3), 0 (0-25), Z=-2.232, P<0.05). Conclusion: For patients with gynecological malignancies with pelvic recurrence, both of the two peroperative plans could achieve prescription dose, but 3D-PNCT is more safer.