The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2024
From 2D to 3D: automatic measurement of the Cobb angle in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with the weight-bearing 3D imaging.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Liang Zejun, Wang Qian, Xia Chunchao, Chen Zengtong, Xu Miao, Liang Guilun, Yu Zhang, Ye Chao, Zhang Yiteng, Yu Xiaocheng, Wang Hairong, Zheng Han, Du Jing, Li Zhenlin, Tang Jing
Аннотация
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) necessitates accurate spinal curvature assessment for effective clinical management. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) Cobb angle measurements have been the standard, but the emergence of three-dimensional (3D) automatic measurement techniques, such as those using weight-bearing 3D imaging (WR3D), presents an opportunity to enhance the accuracy and comprehensiveness of AIS evaluation.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare traditional 2D Cobb angle measurements with 3D automatic measurements utilizing the WR3D imaging technique in patients with AIS.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A cohort of 53 AIS patients was recruited, encompassing 88 spinal curves, for comparative analysis.
PATIENT SAMPLE: The patient sample consisted of 53 individuals diagnosed with AIS.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Cobb angles were calculated using the conventional 2D method and three different 3D methods: the Analytical Method (AM), the Plane Intersecting Method (PIM), and the Plane Projection Method (PPM).
METHODS: The 2D cobb angle was manually measured by 3 experienced clinicians with 2D frontal whole-spine radiographs. For 3D cobb angle measurements, the spine and femoral heads were segmented from the WR3D images using a 3D-UNet deep-learning model, and the automatic calculations of the angles were performed with the 3D slicer software.
RESULTS: AM and PIM estimates were found to be significantly larger than 2D measurements. Conversely, PPM results showed no statistical difference compared to the 2D method. These findings were consistent in a subgroup analysis based on 2D Cobb angles.
CONCLUSION: Each 3D measurement method provides a unique assessment of spinal curvature, with PPM offering values closely resembling 2D measurements, while AM and PIM yield larger estimations. The utilization of WR3D technology alongside deep learning segmentation ensures accuracy and efficiency in comparative analyses. However, additional studies, particularly involving patients with severe curves, are required to validate and expand on these results. This study emphasizes the importance of selecting an appropriate measurement method considering the imaging modality and clinical context when assessing AIS, and it also underlines the need for continuous refinement of these techniques for optimal use in clinical decision-making and patient management.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare traditional 2D Cobb angle measurements with 3D automatic measurements utilizing the WR3D imaging technique in patients with AIS.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A cohort of 53 AIS patients was recruited, encompassing 88 spinal curves, for comparative analysis.
PATIENT SAMPLE: The patient sample consisted of 53 individuals diagnosed with AIS.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Cobb angles were calculated using the conventional 2D method and three different 3D methods: the Analytical Method (AM), the Plane Intersecting Method (PIM), and the Plane Projection Method (PPM).
METHODS: The 2D cobb angle was manually measured by 3 experienced clinicians with 2D frontal whole-spine radiographs. For 3D cobb angle measurements, the spine and femoral heads were segmented from the WR3D images using a 3D-UNet deep-learning model, and the automatic calculations of the angles were performed with the 3D slicer software.
RESULTS: AM and PIM estimates were found to be significantly larger than 2D measurements. Conversely, PPM results showed no statistical difference compared to the 2D method. These findings were consistent in a subgroup analysis based on 2D Cobb angles.
CONCLUSION: Each 3D measurement method provides a unique assessment of spinal curvature, with PPM offering values closely resembling 2D measurements, while AM and PIM yield larger estimations. The utilization of WR3D technology alongside deep learning segmentation ensures accuracy and efficiency in comparative analyses. However, additional studies, particularly involving patients with severe curves, are required to validate and expand on these results. This study emphasizes the importance of selecting an appropriate measurement method considering the imaging modality and clinical context when assessing AIS, and it also underlines the need for continuous refinement of these techniques for optimal use in clinical decision-making and patient management.