Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31236743›Full record

ReviewJournal of digital imaging2020

Comprehensive Review of 3D Segmentation Software Tools for MRI Usable for Pelvic Surgery Planning.

Alessio Virzì, Cécile Olivia Muller, Jean-Baptiste Marret, Eva Mille, Laureline Berteloot, David Grévent, Nathalie Boddaert, Pietro Gori, Sabine Sarnacki, Isabelle Bloch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of digital imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. TranslatingFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Alessio VirzìLTCI, Télécom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Paris, France. alessiovirz@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7956-3006
Cécile Olivia MullerIMAG2 Laboratory, Imagine Institute, Paris, France.
Jean-Baptiste MarretIMAG2 Laboratory, Imagine Institute, Paris, France.
Eva MilleIMAG2 Laboratory, Imagine Institute, Paris, France.
Laureline BertelootIMAG2 Laboratory, Imagine Institute, Paris, France.
David GréventIMAG2 Laboratory, Imagine Institute, Paris, France.
Nathalie BoddaertIMAG2 Laboratory, Imagine Institute, Paris, France.
Pietro GoriLTCI, Télécom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Paris, France.
Sabine SarnackiIMAG2 Laboratory, Imagine Institute, Paris, France.
Isabelle BlochLTCI, Télécom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-specific 3D modeling is the first step towards image-guided surgery, the actual revolution in surgical care. Pediatric and adolescent patients with rare tumors and malformations should highly benefit from these latest technological innovations, allowing personalized tailored surgery. This study focused on the pelvic region, located at the crossroads of the urinary, digestive, and genital channels with important vascular and nervous structures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances of different software tools to obtain patient-specific 3D models, through segmentation of magnetic resonance images (MRI), the reference for pediatric pelvis examination. Twelve software tools freely available on the Internet and two commercial software tools were evaluated using T2-w MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI images. The software tools were rated according to eight criteria, evaluated by three different users: automatization degree, segmentation time, usability, 3D visualization, presence of image registration tools, tractography tools, supported OS, and potential extension (i.e., plugins). A ranking of software tools for 3D modeling of MRI medical images, according to the set of predefined criteria, was given. This ranking allowed us to elaborate guidelines for the choice of software tools for pelvic surgical planning in pediatric patients. The best-ranked software tools were Myrian Studio, ITK-SNAP, and 3D Slicer, the latter being especially appropriate if nerve fibers should be included in the 3D patient model. To conclude, this study proposed a comprehensive review of software tools for 3D modeling of the pelvis according to a set of eight criteria and delivered specific conclusions for pediatric and adolescent patients that can be directly applied to clinical practice.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalSurgery, Computer-AssistedHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPelvisSoftware3D modelingMRIPelvic surgerySegmentation software

Identifiers

PMID31236743
PMCPMC7064712

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.