Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-9 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 5 Jun 2015 |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 2016 |
Abstract
Purpose: Objective determination of the orbital volume is important in the diagnostic process and in evaluating the efficacy of medical and/or surgical treatment of orbital diseases. Tools designed to measure orbital volume with computed tomography (CT) often cannot be used with cone beam CT (CBCT) because of inferior tissue representation, although CBCT has the benefit of greater availability and lower patient radiation exposure. Therefore, a model-based segmentation technique is presented as a new method for measuring orbital volume and compared to alternative techniques. Methods: Both eyes from thirty subjects with no known orbital pathology who had undergone CBCT as a part of routine care were evaluated (n = 60 eyes). Orbital volume was measured with manual, atlas-based, and model-based segmentation methods. Volume measurements, volume determination time, and usability were compared between the three methods. Differences in means were tested for statistical significance using two-tailed Student’s t tests. Results: Neither atlas-based (26.63 ± 3.15 mm3) nor model-based (26.87 ± 2.99 mm3) measurements were significantly different from manual volume measurements (26.65 ± 4.0 mm3). However, the time required to determine orbital volume was significantly longer for manual measurements (10.24 ± 1.21 min) than for atlas-based (6.96 ± 2.62 min, p < 0.001) or model-based (5.73 ± 1.12 min, p < 0.001) measurements. Conclusion: All three orbital volume measurement methods examined can accurately measure orbital volume, although atlas-based and model-based methods seem to be more user-friendly and less time-consuming. The new model-based technique achieves fully automated segmentation results, whereas all atlas-based segmentations at least required manipulations to the anterior closing. Additionally, model-based segmentation can provide reliable orbital volume measurements when CT image quality is poor.
Keywords
- Cone beam computed tomography, Model segmentation, Orbital volume, Pseudoforamina
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Medicine(all)
- Surgery
- Engineering(all)
- Biomedical Engineering
- Medicine(all)
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
- Computer Science(all)
- Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
- Medicine(all)
- Health Informatics
- Computer Science(all)
- Computer Science Applications
- Computer Science(all)
- Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, Vol. 11, No. 1, 01.2016, p. 1-9.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Model-based segmentation in orbital volume measurement with cone beam computed tomography and evaluation against current concepts
AU - Wagner, Maximilian E. H.
AU - Gellrich, Nils-Claudius
AU - Friese, Karl-Ingo
AU - Becker, Matthias
AU - Wolter, Franz-Erich
AU - Lichtenstein, Juergen T.
AU - Stoetzer, Marcus
AU - Rana, Majeed
AU - Essig, Harald
N1 - Funding Information: The work of MEHW and JTL is funded, in part, by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. This work was funded by AOCMF. The sponsor or funding organization had no role in the design or conduct of this research. MB contributed to this work while working at the Institute for Man-Machine Communication, Leibniz University Hannover, Germany.
PY - 2016/1
Y1 - 2016/1
N2 - Purpose: Objective determination of the orbital volume is important in the diagnostic process and in evaluating the efficacy of medical and/or surgical treatment of orbital diseases. Tools designed to measure orbital volume with computed tomography (CT) often cannot be used with cone beam CT (CBCT) because of inferior tissue representation, although CBCT has the benefit of greater availability and lower patient radiation exposure. Therefore, a model-based segmentation technique is presented as a new method for measuring orbital volume and compared to alternative techniques. Methods: Both eyes from thirty subjects with no known orbital pathology who had undergone CBCT as a part of routine care were evaluated (n = 60 eyes). Orbital volume was measured with manual, atlas-based, and model-based segmentation methods. Volume measurements, volume determination time, and usability were compared between the three methods. Differences in means were tested for statistical significance using two-tailed Student’s t tests. Results: Neither atlas-based (26.63 ± 3.15 mm3) nor model-based (26.87 ± 2.99 mm3) measurements were significantly different from manual volume measurements (26.65 ± 4.0 mm3). However, the time required to determine orbital volume was significantly longer for manual measurements (10.24 ± 1.21 min) than for atlas-based (6.96 ± 2.62 min, p < 0.001) or model-based (5.73 ± 1.12 min, p < 0.001) measurements. Conclusion: All three orbital volume measurement methods examined can accurately measure orbital volume, although atlas-based and model-based methods seem to be more user-friendly and less time-consuming. The new model-based technique achieves fully automated segmentation results, whereas all atlas-based segmentations at least required manipulations to the anterior closing. Additionally, model-based segmentation can provide reliable orbital volume measurements when CT image quality is poor.
AB - Purpose: Objective determination of the orbital volume is important in the diagnostic process and in evaluating the efficacy of medical and/or surgical treatment of orbital diseases. Tools designed to measure orbital volume with computed tomography (CT) often cannot be used with cone beam CT (CBCT) because of inferior tissue representation, although CBCT has the benefit of greater availability and lower patient radiation exposure. Therefore, a model-based segmentation technique is presented as a new method for measuring orbital volume and compared to alternative techniques. Methods: Both eyes from thirty subjects with no known orbital pathology who had undergone CBCT as a part of routine care were evaluated (n = 60 eyes). Orbital volume was measured with manual, atlas-based, and model-based segmentation methods. Volume measurements, volume determination time, and usability were compared between the three methods. Differences in means were tested for statistical significance using two-tailed Student’s t tests. Results: Neither atlas-based (26.63 ± 3.15 mm3) nor model-based (26.87 ± 2.99 mm3) measurements were significantly different from manual volume measurements (26.65 ± 4.0 mm3). However, the time required to determine orbital volume was significantly longer for manual measurements (10.24 ± 1.21 min) than for atlas-based (6.96 ± 2.62 min, p < 0.001) or model-based (5.73 ± 1.12 min, p < 0.001) measurements. Conclusion: All three orbital volume measurement methods examined can accurately measure orbital volume, although atlas-based and model-based methods seem to be more user-friendly and less time-consuming. The new model-based technique achieves fully automated segmentation results, whereas all atlas-based segmentations at least required manipulations to the anterior closing. Additionally, model-based segmentation can provide reliable orbital volume measurements when CT image quality is poor.
KW - Cone beam computed tomography
KW - Model segmentation
KW - Orbital volume
KW - Pseudoforamina
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955713860&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11548-015-1228-8
DO - 10.1007/s11548-015-1228-8
M3 - Article
C2 - 26040710
AN - SCOPUS:84955713860
VL - 11
SP - 1
EP - 9
JO - International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery
JF - International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery
SN - 1861-6410
IS - 1
ER -