ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2024
Comparison of two 3D scanning software to identify facial features: a prospective instrument to predict difficult airway.
Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical airway assessment has limited predictive ability to anticipate difficult airway. Three-dimensional (3D) technologies have emerged in medicine as valuable tools in different settings including innovation and surgical planning. Three-dimensional facial scanning could add value to clinical measurements and two-dimensional models to assess the airway. However, commonly used high-fidelity scans are expensive. This study aims to compare the accuracy of the measurements made by the Scandy Pro app as a cost-effective alternative to high-fidelity scans made by the Artec Space Spider. We also aim to evaluate the interobserver variability for the measurements performed with Scandy Pro. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, comparison study on 10 healthy volunteers. Four observers measured 720 distances and 400 using both Scandy Pro and Artec Space Spider facial scans. Wilcoxon test was used for group-group comparison.
resultsComparison of both instruments showed no difference in angle or distance measurements. The percentage error (measurement difference between the two devices) exhibited by one of the observers was significantly different compared with the other three observers; however, the magnitude of this individual deviation did not affect the overall percentage error. The overall error for Scandy Pro was 5.5% (3.9% and 6.7% for angles and distances, respectively).
conclusionThree-dimensional facial scanning with Scandy Pro is an accurate tool that can be a cost-effective alternative to high-fidelity scans produced by the Artec Space Spider.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.