Validation of two handheld devices against a non-portable three-dimensional surface scanner and assessment of potential use for intraoperative facial imaging
Validation of two handheld devices against a non-portable three-dimensional surface scanner and assessment of potential use for intraoperative facial imaging
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.bjps.2019.07.008
复制
发表时间：
2020-01-01
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Giunta, Riccardo Enzo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Koban, Konstantin Christoph;Perko, Philipp;Giunta, Riccardo Enzo
背景：这项研究的目的是比较两种手持移动三维表面成像(3DSI)设备与已建立的非便携式医学成像系统的准确性和时间性，并评估未来在面部外科手术中的应用。方法：使用表面到表面均方根分析来评估消费性设备(Sense 3D)和专业表面扫描仪(Artec EVA)与参考成像系统(Vectra XT)。两名评审员和30名志愿者在两个不同的会话中重复对一个成像模型和30名志愿者的面部区域进行3D成像。使用这两种移动设备，对术中10例隆鼻患者的3DSI与术前参考影像进行比较。结果：ARTEC EVA在整个面部和除眼睛区域以外的所有亚单位的平均偏差均在0.5 mm以下。Sense 3D显示整个面部的偏差相似，但其他情况下仅在中央和外侧额部单位以及内侧面颊显示偏差。非便携式Vectra XT和Artec Eva的可变性都很低，而使用Sense 3D进行的全脸评估导致了高可变性。与术前参考图像相比，术中3DSI显示Artec EVA的偏差较低，而Sense 3D的偏差较高。结论：Artec Eva获取的三维表面具有与Vectra XT参考图像相似的面部成像精度。这种手持设备为鼻整形手术中的客观记录提供了一个合适的选择。Sense 3D不能准确捕捉复杂的面部表面，因此在术中3DSI中的应用受到限制。(C)2019年英国整形、重建和美容外科医生协会。爱思唯尔有限公司出版。保留所有权利。
Background: The aim of this study was to compare accuracy and timing of two handheld, mobile three-dimensional surface imaging (3DSI) devices against an established non-portable medical imaging system, and to evaluate future intraoperative use for facial surgery.Methods: Surface-to-Surface root mean square analysis was used to evaluate both a consumer device (Sense 3D) and a professional surface scanner (Artec Eva) against a reference imaging system (Vectra XT). Two assessors repeatedly 3D-imaged the facial region of an imaging phantom and 30 volunteers in two separate sessions. Using both mobile devices, intraoperative 3DSI of 10 rhinoplasty patients was compared with preoperative reference imaging. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was calculated for repeated measurements.Results: Artec Eva yielded mean deviations below 0.5 mm for the whole face and all subunits excluding the eye region. Sense 3D showed similar deviations for the whole face, but otherwise only in the central and lateral forehead unit and the medial cheek. Variability was low for both the non-portable Vectra XT and Artec Eva, whereas full-face assessment using Sense 3D resulted in high variability. When compared to the preoperative reference images, intraoperative rhinoplasty 3DSI revealed low deviations for Artec Eva and high deviations for Sense 3D.Conclusions: The 3D surfaces captured by Artec Eva showed a similarly desirable accuracy for facial imaging as Vectra XT reference images. This handheld device presents a suitable option for the objective documentation during rhinoplasty surgery. Sense 3D was unable to accurately capture complex facial surfaces and is therefore limited in its usefulness for intraoperative 3DSI. (c) 2019 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.