OBJECTIVES: Three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) of facial fractures has been reported as beneficial using surface (SR) and volume rendering (VR). There are controversial statements concerning the preferable algorithm. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare SR and VR for clinical 3D-CT in facial fractures on an experimental basis. METHODS: Multislice CT was obtained in 22 patients with facial fractures using two data acquisition protocols. Five SR and VR post-processing protocols were applied. Five assessors independently evaluated the quality of visualization of the fracture gap and dislocated fragments as well as the overall image quality using a five-point rating scale. The potential benefit of the 3D-images for radiological diagnosis and presentation was evaluated. The influence of the data acquisition protocol was analysed. RESULTS: SR in general achieved better evaluation scores than VR at corresponding thresholds. Variation of evaluation scores for all criteria was found for SR and VR depending on the segmentation threshold. Apart from the overall image quality no significant influence of the data acquisition technique was found for the evaluated criteria. CONCLUSIONS: SR provided sufficient and time efficient means for 3D-visualization of facial fractures in this study. No diagnostic benefit of VR over SR was found.
OBJECTIVES: Three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) of facial fractures has been reported as beneficial using surface (SR) and volume rendering (VR). There are controversial statements concerning the preferable algorithm. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare SR and VR for clinical 3D-CT in facial fractures on an experimental basis. METHODS: Multislice CT was obtained in 22 patients with facial fractures using two data acquisition protocols. Five SR and VR post-processing protocols were applied. Five assessors independently evaluated the quality of visualization of the fracture gap and dislocated fragments as well as the overall image quality using a five-point rating scale. The potential benefit of the 3D-images for radiological diagnosis and presentation was evaluated. The influence of the data acquisition protocol was analysed. RESULTS: SR in general achieved better evaluation scores than VR at corresponding thresholds. Variation of evaluation scores for all criteria was found for SR and VR depending on the segmentation threshold. Apart from the overall image quality no significant influence of the data acquisition technique was found for the evaluated criteria. CONCLUSIONS: SR provided sufficient and time efficient means for 3D-visualization of facial fractures in this study. No diagnostic benefit of VR over SR was found.
Authors: Elvis J Hermann; Ioannis Petrakakis; Friedrich Götz; Götz Lütjens; Josef Lang; Makoto Nakamura; Joachim K Krauss Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Elvis J Hermann; Majid Esmaeilzadeh; Philipp Ertl; Manolis Polemikos; Peter Raab; Joachim K Krauss Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2015-05-02 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Helmut Ringl; Ruediger Schernthaner; Marcel O Philipp; Sylvia Metz-Schimmerl; Christian Czerny; Michael Weber; Christian Gäbler; Andrea Steiner-Ringl; Philipp Peloschek; Christian J Herold; Wolfgang Schima Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 5.315