Comparison of Common Methods for Precision Volume Measurement of Hematoma

被引:18
|
作者
Chen, Minhong [1 ]
Li, Zhong [1 ]
Ding, Jianping [2 ]
Lu, Xingqi [2 ]
Cheng, Yinan [3 ]
Lin, Jiayun [1 ]
机构
[1] Zhejiang Sci Tech Univ, Coll Sci, Hangzhou 310018, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
[2] Hangzhou Normal Univ, Affiliated Hosp, Hangzhou 310015, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
[3] Southern Univ Sci & Technol, Coll Sci, Shenzhen 518055, Guangdong, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
INTRACEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE; 3D SLICER; POWERFUL;
D O I
10.1155/2020/6930836
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Purpose. Our aim is to conduct analysis and comparison of some methods commonly used to measure the volume of hematoma, for example, slice method, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer software method (projection method).Method. In order to validate the accuracy of the slice method, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer method, these three methods were first applied to measure two known volumetric models, respectively. Then, a total of 198 patients diagnosed with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) were recruited. The patients were split into 3 different groups based on the hematoma size: group 1:volume<10 ml(n=89), group 2: volume between 10 and 20 ml (n=59), and group 3:volume>20 ml(n=50). And the shape of the hematoma was classed into regular (round to ellipsoid) with smooth margins (n=76), irregular with frayed margins (n=85), and multilobular (n=37). The slice method, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer method were adopted to measure the volume of hematoma, respectively, considering the nonclosed models and the models which may contain inaccurate normal information during CT scan. Moreover, the results were compared with the 3D-Slicer method for closed models.Results. There was a significant estimation error (P<0.05) using these three methods to calculate the volume of the closed hematoma model. The estimated hematoma volume was calculated to be14.2086743 +/- 0.900559087 ml,14.2119130 +/- 0.900851812 ml, and14.2123825 +/- 0.900835916 ml using slice method 1, slice method 2, and the voxelization method, respectively, compared to14.212656 +/- 0.900992371 ml using the 3D-Slicer method. The mean estimation error was-0.00398172 ml,-0.00074303 ml, and-0.00027354 ml caused by slice method 1, slice method 2, and voxelization method, respectively. There was a significant estimation error (P<0.05), applying these three methods to calculate the volume of the nonclosed hematoma model. The estimated hematoma volume was calculated to be14.1928246 +/- 0.902210314 ml using the 3D-Slicer method. The mean estimation error was calculated to be-0.00402121 ml,-0.00078237 ml, -0.00031288 ml, and-0.01983136 ml using slice method 1, slice method 2, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer method, respectively.Conclusions. The 3D-Slicer software method is considered as a stable and capable method of high precision for the calculation of a closed hematoma model with correct normal direction, while it would be inappropriate for the nonclosed model nor the model with incorrect normal direction. The slice method and voxelization method can be the supplement and improvement of the 3D-Slicer software method, for the purpose of achieving precision medicine.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] MEASUREMENT OF BREAST VOLUME - COMPARISON OF TECHNIQUES
    PALIN, WE
    VONFRAUNHOFER, JA
    SMITH, DJ
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 1986, 77 (02) : 253 - 254
  • [42] COMPARISON OF METHODS OF SWELLING MEASUREMENT
    TANIGUCHI, S
    OHMI, M
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE OF JAPAN, 1980, 20 (08) : 509 - 517
  • [43] Comparison of alternative measurement methods
    Kuttatharmmakul, S
    Massart, DL
    Smeyers-Verbeke, J
    ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA, 1999, 391 (02) : 203 - 225
  • [44] COMPARISON OF THICKNESS MEASUREMENT METHODS
    CROMBIE, P
    APPITA, 1972, 26 (03): : 203 - 206
  • [45] A Comparison of Gait Measurement Methods
    Jones, J. Adam
    Thai Phan
    2019 IEEE SOUTHEASTCON, 2019,
  • [46] Precision and reliability for measurement of change in MRI lesion volume in multiple sclerosis: a comparison of two computer assisted techniques
    Molyneux, PD
    Tofts, PS
    Fletcher, A
    Gunn, B
    Robinson, P
    Gallagher, H
    Moseley, IF
    Barker, GJ
    Miller, DH
    JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 1998, 65 (01): : 42 - 47
  • [47] COMPARISON OF PREFERENCE MEASUREMENT METHODS
    ROTHAUSER, EH
    URBANEK, GE
    PACHL, WP
    JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1971, 49 (04): : 1297 - +
  • [48] MEASUREMENT OF BRONCHOPULMONARY ELASTANCE AND AIRWAY-RESISTANCE - COMPARISON BETWEEN COMMON METHODS AND AUTOMATIC CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT BY SYSTEM AUPREM
    SCHLICK, W
    FITZAL, S
    BENZER, H
    GEYER, A
    MULAC, C
    SCHMID, P
    ANAESTHESIST, 1976, 25 (08): : 393 - 397
  • [49] Comparison of 3-D Self-Calibration Methods for High-Precision Measurement Instruments
    Qiao, Xiaoyue
    Ding, Guoqing
    Chen, Xin
    Cai, Ping
    Shao, Li
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, 2022, 71
  • [50] RADIONUCLIDE MEASUREMENT OF LEFT-VENTRICULAR VOLUME - COMPARISON OF GEOMETRIC AND COUNTS-BASED METHODS
    MASSIE, BM
    KRAMER, BL
    GERTZ, EW
    HENDERSON, SG
    CIRCULATION, 1982, 65 (04) : 725 - 730