OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To understand: 1) how endoscopic airway measurements compare to three-dimensional (3D) CT derived measurements; 2) where each technique is potentially useful; and 3) where each has limitations. STUDY DESIGN: Compare airway diameters and cross-sectional areas from endoscopic images and CT derived 3D reconstructions. METHODS: Videobronchoscopy was performed and recorded on an adult-sized commercially available airway mannequin. At various levels, cross-sectional areas were measured from still video frames using a referent placed via the biopsy port. A 3D reconstruction was generated from a high resolution CT of the mannequin; planar sections were cut at similar cross-sectional levels; and cross-sectional areas were obtained. RESULTS: At three levels of mechanically generated tracheal stricture, the differences between the endoscopic measurement and CT-derived cross-sectional area were 1%, 0%, and 7% (1.8, 0.8, and 14 mm²). At the vocal folds, the difference was 9% (7.8 mm²). The tip of the epiglottis and width of the epiglottis differed by 27% and 10% (18.73 mm², 0.40 mm). The airway measurements at the base of tongue, minimal cross-sectional area of the pharynx, and choana differed by 26%, 36%, and 30% (101.40 mm², 36.67 mm², 122.71 mm²). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy is an effective tool for obtaining airway measurements compared with 3D reconstructions derived from CT. Concordance is best in geometrically simple areas where the entire cross-section measured is visible within one field of view (trachea, round; vocal folds, triangular) versus geometrically complex areas that encompass more than one field of view (i.e. pharynx, choana).
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To understand: 1) how endoscopic airway measurements compare to three-dimensional (3D) CT derived measurements; 2) where each technique is potentially useful; and 3) where each has limitations. STUDY DESIGN: Compare airway diameters and cross-sectional areas from endoscopic images and CT derived 3D reconstructions. METHODS: Videobronchoscopy was performed and recorded on an adult-sized commercially available airway mannequin. At various levels, cross-sectional areas were measured from still video frames using a referent placed via the biopsy port. A 3D reconstruction was generated from a high resolution CT of the mannequin; planar sections were cut at similar cross-sectional levels; and cross-sectional areas were obtained. RESULTS: At three levels of mechanically generated tracheal stricture, the differences between the endoscopic measurement and CT-derived cross-sectional area were 1%, 0%, and 7% (1.8, 0.8, and 14 mm²). At the vocal folds, the difference was 9% (7.8 mm²). The tip of the epiglottis and width of the epiglottis differed by 27% and 10% (18.73 mm², 0.40 mm). The airway measurements at the base of tongue, minimal cross-sectional area of the pharynx, and choana differed by 26%, 36%, and 30% (101.40 mm², 36.67 mm², 122.71 mm²). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy is an effective tool for obtaining airway measurements compared with 3D reconstructions derived from CT. Concordance is best in geometrically simple areas where the entire cross-section measured is visible within one field of view (trachea, round; vocal folds, triangular) versus geometrically complex areas that encompass more than one field of view (i.e. pharynx, choana).
Authors: Paweł Czaja; Jerzy Soja; Piotr Grzanka; Adam Cmiel; Andrzej Szczeklik; Krzysztof Sładek Journal: Respiration Date: 2006-12-11 Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: S A R Nouraei; D W McPartlin; S M Nouraei; A Patel; C Ferguson; D J Howard; G S Sandhu Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Jonathan P Williamson; Robert A McLaughlin; Martin J Phillips; Julian J Armstrong; Sven Becker; Jennifer H Walsh; David D Sampson; David R Hillman; Peter R Eastwood Journal: Chest Date: 2009-02-18 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Pon Poh Hsu; Alvin Kah Leong Tan; Barrie Yau Boon Tan; Eng Cern Gan; Yiong Huak Chan; Robin L Blair; Peter Kuo Sun Lu Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: J P Williamson; J J Armstrong; R A McLaughlin; P B Noble; A R West; S Becker; A Curatolo; W J Noffsinger; H W Mitchell; M J Phillips; D D Sampson; D R Hillman; P R Eastwood Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2009-06-18 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Christian R Francom; Cameron A Best; Ryan G Eaton; Victoria Pepper; Amanda J Onwuka; Christopher K Breuer; Meredith N Merz Lind; Jonathan M Grischkan; Tendy Chiang Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: Julia S Kimbell; Saikat Basu; Guilherme J M Garcia; Dennis O Frank-Ito; Frances Lazarow; Erica Su; Dimitry Protsenko; Zhongping Chen; John S Rhee; Brian J Wong Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Victoria S Lee; Kelly N Evans; Francisco A Perez; Assaf P Oron; Jonathan A Perkins Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 6.223