International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2015
Orbital volume analysis: validation of a semi-automatic software segmentation method.
СтатьяВалидационное 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.
Jansen Jesper, Schreurs Ruud, Dubois Leander, Maal Thomas J J, Gooris Peter J J, Becking Alfred G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to validate a quick, accurate and reproducible (semi-) automatic software segmentation method to measure orbital volume in the unaffected bony orbit. Precise volume measurement of the orbital cavity is a useful addition to pre-operative planning and intraoperative navigation in orbital reconstruction.
METHODS: In 21 CT scans, one unaffected orbit was selected to compare manual segmentation (gold standard) with three segmentation methods using iPlan software (version 3.0.5; Brainlab, Feldkirchen, Germany): automatic (method A), automatic minus bone/air masks (method SA) and automatic minus masks followed by manual adjustments (method SAA). First, validation of the manual segmentation and a newly described method for the anterior boundary was performed. Subsequently the accuracy, reproducibility and time efficiency of the methods were examined. Measurements were performed by two observers.
RESULTS: The intraclass correlation for the interobserver agreement of the anterior boundary was 0.992, and the intraobserver and interobserver agreement for the manual segmentation were 0.997 and 0.994, respectively. Method A had an average volumetric difference of 0.49 cc (SD 0.74) in comparison with the gold standard; this was 0.24 cc (SD 0.27) for method SA and 0.86 cc (SD 0.27) for method SAA. The average time for each method was 38 (SD 5.4), 146 (SD 16.0) and 327 (SD 36.2) seconds per orbit.
CONCLUSION: The built-in automatic method A is quick, but suboptimal for clinical use. The newly developed method SA appears to be accurate, reproducible, quick and easy to use. Manual adjustments in method SAA are more time-consuming and do not improve volume accuracy. The largest volume discrepancy is located near the inferior orbital fissure.
METHODS: In 21 CT scans, one unaffected orbit was selected to compare manual segmentation (gold standard) with three segmentation methods using iPlan software (version 3.0.5; Brainlab, Feldkirchen, Germany): automatic (method A), automatic minus bone/air masks (method SA) and automatic minus masks followed by manual adjustments (method SAA). First, validation of the manual segmentation and a newly described method for the anterior boundary was performed. Subsequently the accuracy, reproducibility and time efficiency of the methods were examined. Measurements were performed by two observers.
RESULTS: The intraclass correlation for the interobserver agreement of the anterior boundary was 0.992, and the intraobserver and interobserver agreement for the manual segmentation were 0.997 and 0.994, respectively. Method A had an average volumetric difference of 0.49 cc (SD 0.74) in comparison with the gold standard; this was 0.24 cc (SD 0.27) for method SA and 0.86 cc (SD 0.27) for method SAA. The average time for each method was 38 (SD 5.4), 146 (SD 16.0) and 327 (SD 36.2) seconds per orbit.
CONCLUSION: The built-in automatic method A is quick, but suboptimal for clinical use. The newly developed method SA appears to be accurate, reproducible, quick and easy to use. Manual adjustments in method SAA are more time-consuming and do not improve volume accuracy. The largest volume discrepancy is located near the inferior orbital fissure.