Foot and ankle surgery : official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons · 2024
Automatic software-based 3D-angular measurement for weight-bearing CT (WBCT) is valid.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Richter Martinus, Zech Stefan, Naef Issam, Duerr Fabian, Schilke Regina
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare automatic software-based angular measurement (AM) with validated measurement by hand (MBH) regarding angle values and time spent for Weight-Bearing CT (WBCT) generated datasets.
METHODS: Five-hundred WBCT scans from different pathologies were included in the study. 1st - 2nd intermetatarsal angle, talo-1st metatarsal angle dorsoplantar and lateral, hindfoot angle, calcaneal pitch angle were measured and compared between MBH and AM.
RESULTS: The pathologies were ankle osteoarthritis/instability, n = 147 (29%); Haglund deformity/Achillodynia, n = 41 (8%); forefoot deformity, n = 108 (22%); Hallux rigidus, n = 37 (7%); flatfoot, n = 35 (7%); cavus foot, n = 10 (2%); osteoarthritis except ankle, n = 82 (16%). The angles did not differ between MBH and AM (each p > 0.36). The time spent for MBH / AM was 44.5 / 1 s on average per angle (p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: AM provided angles which were not different from validated MBH and can be considered as a validated angle measurement method. The time spent was 97% lower for AM than for MBH.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
METHODS: Five-hundred WBCT scans from different pathologies were included in the study. 1st - 2nd intermetatarsal angle, talo-1st metatarsal angle dorsoplantar and lateral, hindfoot angle, calcaneal pitch angle were measured and compared between MBH and AM.
RESULTS: The pathologies were ankle osteoarthritis/instability, n = 147 (29%); Haglund deformity/Achillodynia, n = 41 (8%); forefoot deformity, n = 108 (22%); Hallux rigidus, n = 37 (7%); flatfoot, n = 35 (7%); cavus foot, n = 10 (2%); osteoarthritis except ankle, n = 82 (16%). The angles did not differ between MBH and AM (each p > 0.36). The time spent for MBH / AM was 44.5 / 1 s on average per angle (p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: AM provided angles which were not different from validated MBH and can be considered as a validated angle measurement method. The time spent was 97% lower for AM than for MBH.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level III.