Literature DB >> 24217474

Comparison of methodologies in volumetric orbitometry.

Tammy H Osaki1, Dawn K de Castro, Cristina Yabumoto, Varalee Mingkwansook, Eric Ting, Nambi Nallasamy, Hugh Curtin, Aaron Fay.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The rate at which the orbit matures is not well-documented. Limiting this pursuit are the difficulties inherent in measuring orbital volumes accurately. This study compared 3 common methods of determining orbital volume and sought to identify an accurate, practical manner for doing so.
METHODS: The volume of 1 orbit of 8 human cadaver heads was independently measured using 3 different methods: 1) CT was performed, and images were analyzed with 3-dimensional (3D) volumetric software; 2) The same orbits were then exenterated and a silicone cast was taken. The cast volumes were measured by water displacement; 3) The orbits were then filled with 1-mm glass beads that were transferred to a graduated cylinder where their volume was determined. The data were analyzed statistically.
RESULTS: Intraobserver agreements were good for both beads and casts. Interobserver agreements were good for both beads and CT (p > 0.05). Values obtained using the bead method were equal to values obtained using the cast method (p > 0.05). However, agreement between direct (orbital fillers and casts) and indirect measurements (radiographic techniques) was not satisfactory (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Independent of method, determining orbital volume is inherently difficult owing to the hyperbolic parabola that is the orbit entrance; all methods require estimation. Glass beads and casts yielded more reproducible values but can only be used in cadavers. CT measurement is prone to error due to the variability of methodologies used but allows access to enormous testing populations. Interstudy comparison is currently not possible. CT volumetric software with strict universal standards for estimating the anterior limit of the orbit appears to be the best method of studying human orbital volumes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24217474     DOI: 10.1097/IOP.0b013e31829d028a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0740-9303            Impact factor:   1.746


  6 in total

1.  3D printing for orbital volume anatomical measurement.

Authors:  Nolwenn Piot; Florent Barry; Matthias Schlund; Joël Ferri; Xavier Demondion; Romain Nicot
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2022-07-02       Impact factor: 1.354

2.  Contour Variability in Thyroid Eye Disease with Compressive Optic Neuropathy Treated with Radiation Therapy.

Authors:  Tavish Nanda; Andrew Sanchez; Juhi Purswani; Cheng-Chia Wu; Michael Kazim; Tony J C Wang
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-02-29

3.  Orbital volume analysis: validation of a semi-automatic software segmentation method.

Authors:  Jesper Jansen; Ruud Schreurs; Leander Dubois; Thomas J J Maal; Peter J J Gooris; Alfred G Becking
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.924

4.  Orbital radiologic parameters of non-syndromic exorbitism patients in comparison with normal population.

Authors:  Mohammad Taher Rajabi; Mohamad Amin Borjian; Seyedeh Simindokht Hosseini; Mohammad Bagher Rajabi; Farideh Hosseinzadeh; S Saeed Mohammadi
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-08-30

5.  A deep learning method for automatic segmentation of the bony orbit in MRI and CT images.

Authors:  Jared Hamwood; Beat Schmutz; Michael J Collins; Mark C Allenby; David Alonso-Caneiro
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Computed tomographic measurements of orbital entrance dimensions in relation to age and gender in a sample of healthy Iranian population.

Authors:  Zoha Khademi; Parvindokht Bayat
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-04-02
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.