Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26040710›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2016

Model-based segmentation in orbital volume measurement with cone beam computed tomography and evaluation against current concepts.

Maximilian E H Wagner, Nils-Claudius Gellrich, Karl-Ingo Friese, Matthias Becker, Franz-Erich Wolter, Juergen T Lichtenstein, Marcus Stoetzer, Majeed Rana, Harald Essig

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Maximilian E H WagnerDepartment of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neubergstrasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. m.e.h.wagner@icloud.com.
Nils-Claudius GellrichDepartment of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neubergstrasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Karl-Ingo FrieseInstitute for Man-Machine Communication, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Matthias BeckerMIRALab, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Franz-Erich WolterInstitute for Man-Machine Communication, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Juergen T LichtensteinDepartment of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neubergstrasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Marcus StoetzerDepartment of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neubergstrasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Majeed RanaDepartment of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neubergstrasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Harald EssigDepartment of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeObjective 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.

methodsBoth 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.

resultsNeither atlas-based (26.63 ± 3.15 mm(3)) nor model-based (26.87 ± 2.99 mm(3)) measurements were significantly different from manual volume measurements (26.65 ± 4.0 mm(3)). 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.

conclusionAll 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.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyFemaleHumansMaleOrbitOrgan SizeReproducibility of ResultsTomography, X-Ray ComputedCone beam computed tomographyModel segmentationOrbital volumePseudoforamina

Identifiers

PMID26040710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.