Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2022
3D printing for orbital volume anatomical measurement.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Piot Nolwenn, Barry Florent, Schlund Matthias, Ferri Joël, Demondion Xavier, Nicot Romain
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim was to develop a method for reproducible orbital volume (OV) measurement in vivo based on 3D printing.
METHODS: Twelve orbits were obtained from dry skulls of the Human Anatomy Department of Lille University. Computer tomography (CT) slice images of these orbits were transformed into stereo-lithography (STL) format and 3D-printed. Bone openings were closed using either putty and cellophane after printing (3D-Orb-1) or at the printing stage in silico using MeshMixer (3D-Orb-2). The results were compared with those of the conventional water-filling method as a control group (Anat-Orb).
RESULTS: The observers reported a mean orbital volume of 21.3 ± 2.1 cm3 for the open-skull method, 21.2 ± 2.4 cm3 for the non-sealed 3D-printing method, and 22.2 ± 2.0 cm3 for the closed-print method. Furthermore, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) showed excellent intra-rater agreement, i.e., an ICC of 0.994 for the first observer and 0.998 for the second, and excellent interobserver agreement (ICC: 0.969). The control and 3D-Orb-1 groups show excellent agreement (ICC: 0.972). The 3D-Orb-2 exhibits moderate agreement (ICC: 0.855) with the control and appears to overestimate orbital volume slightly.
CONCLUSION: Our 3D-printing method provides a standardized and reproducible method for the measurement of orbital volume.
METHODS: Twelve orbits were obtained from dry skulls of the Human Anatomy Department of Lille University. Computer tomography (CT) slice images of these orbits were transformed into stereo-lithography (STL) format and 3D-printed. Bone openings were closed using either putty and cellophane after printing (3D-Orb-1) or at the printing stage in silico using MeshMixer (3D-Orb-2). The results were compared with those of the conventional water-filling method as a control group (Anat-Orb).
RESULTS: The observers reported a mean orbital volume of 21.3 ± 2.1 cm3 for the open-skull method, 21.2 ± 2.4 cm3 for the non-sealed 3D-printing method, and 22.2 ± 2.0 cm3 for the closed-print method. Furthermore, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) showed excellent intra-rater agreement, i.e., an ICC of 0.994 for the first observer and 0.998 for the second, and excellent interobserver agreement (ICC: 0.969). The control and 3D-Orb-1 groups show excellent agreement (ICC: 0.972). The 3D-Orb-2 exhibits moderate agreement (ICC: 0.855) with the control and appears to overestimate orbital volume slightly.
CONCLUSION: Our 3D-printing method provides a standardized and reproducible method for the measurement of orbital volume.