| Literature DB >> 30304121 |
Maycon Lázaro Pinheiro1, Marília Yatabe2,2, Marcos Ioshida1, Luan Orlandi3, Priscille de Dumast4, Ivy Kiemle Trindade-Suedam5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of volumetric reconstruction of the pharynx by comparing the volume and minimum crosssectional area (mCSA) determined with open-source applications (ITK-Snap, www.itksnap.org ; SlicerCMF) and commercial software (Dolphin3D, 11.8, Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions, Chatsworth, CA, USA) previously validated in the literature.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30304121 PMCID: PMC6172025 DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2017-0282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Appl Oral Sci ISSN: 1678-7757 Impact factor: 2.698
Figure 1Rectangle formed by the selected anatomic points. On the left, image from Dolphin3D software and, on the right, image from ITK-Snap software
Figure 2Segmentation of a single patient obtained with Dolphin3D (left) and with ITK-Snap (right)
Figure 3Mean axis and highlighted mCSA obtained with Dolphin3D (left) SPHARM-PDM module (right)
Figure 4Models with similar and different position of the mCSA between segmentations performed in Dolphin3D (left) and ITK-Snap (right)
Volume and minimum cross-sectional area values obtained by the applications Dolphin3D, ITK-SNAP, and SlicerCMF with SPHARM-PDM module
| Volume (cm | Minimum cross-sectional area (mm | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXAM | AGE | ITK-SNAP | Dolphin3D | ITK-SNAP, SlicerCMF (SPHARM-PDM module) | Dolphin3D |
| 1 | 25 | 27.63 | 28.60 | 1.47 | 1.26 |
| 2 | 27 | 28.56 | 32.50 | 1.49 | 1.90 |
| 3 | 25 | 20.26 | 19.38 | 1.11 | 0.96 |
| 4 | 21 | 14.15 | 16.60 | 0.80 | 1.04 |
| 5 | 23 | 20.57 | 22.67 | 2.24 | 1.39 |
| 6 | 23 | 40.52 | 35.54 | 4.41 | 4.03 |
| 7 | 30 | 9.93 | 8.85 | 0.49 | 0.38 |
| 8 | 19 | 23.58 | 22.88 | 2.34 | 1.43 |
| 9 | 22 | 18.16 | 17.09 | 1.51 | 0.87 |
| 10 | 25 | 25.86 | 26.88 | 1.45 | 1.45 |
| 11 | 28 | 16.64 | 16.70 | 1.17 | 1.29 |
| 12 | 40 | 14.65 | 16.40 | 1.13 | 0.46 |
| 13 | 18 | 19.50 | 17.58 | 1.44 | 1.39 |
| 14 | 22 | 20.43 | 17.32 | 1.28 | 1.17 |
| 15 | 24 | 22.17 | 22.19 | 1.32 | 1.40 |
| 16 | 37 | 21.64 | 22.80 | 0.65 | 0.80 |
| 17 | 25 | 9.76 | 14.31 | 0.64 | 0.85 |
| 18 | 33 | 19.06 | 21.29 | 1.56 | 1.06 |
| 19 | 26 | 15.86 | 15.67 | 1.63 | 1.14 |
| 20 | 19 | 24.74 | 28.51 | 1.81 | 1.55 |
| 21 | 26 | 17.53 | 19.33 | 1.53 | 1.34 |
| 22 | 34 | 15.10 | 15.88 | 1.10 | 1.13 |
| 23 | 25 | 11.03 | 12.01 | 0.96 | 0.99 |
| 24 | 24 | 14.01 | 16.55 | 1.10 | 1.09 |
| 25 | 23 | 16.19 | 17.27 | 1.13 | 1.12 |
| 26 | 21 | 15.76 | 20.71 | 0.95 | 0.85 |
| 27 | 23 | 32.90 | 31.65 | 1.52 | 1.35 |
| 28 | 27 | 13.60 | 14.28 | 0.93 | 1.09 |
| 29 | 29 | 22.62 | 22.85 | 1.12 | 1.18 |
| 30 | 50 | 8.89 | 11.65 | 0.42 | 0.40 |
| 31 | 23 | 15.02 | 15.66 | 1.03 | 0.99 |
| 32 | 31 | 17.65 | 18.24 | 0.73 | 0.76 |
| 33 | 54 | 12.84 | 13.98 | 0.80 | 0.46 |
| 34 | 55 | 14.85 | 17.92 | 0.85 | 0.44 |
| 35 | 59 | 16.31 | 19.63 | 1.27 | 0.87 |
| Mean | 29 | 23.57 | 22.86 | 1.21 | 1.86 |
| SD | 15 | 8.52 | 8.3 | 0.43 | 1.22 |
|
|
|
| |||
Figure 5Technical differences found by experiencing both applications