C Savoldelli1, G Benat2, L Castillo3, E Chamorey4, J-C Lutz5. 1. Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, head and neck institute, university hospital of Nice, 06000 Nice, France. Electronic address: savoldelli.c@chu-nice.fr. 2. Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, head and neck institute, university hospital of Nice, 06000 Nice, France. Electronic address: gauthier.benat@gmail.com. 3. Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, head and neck institute, university hospital of Nice, 06000 Nice, France. Electronic address: castillo.l@chu-nice.fr. 4. Biostatistic department, centre Antoine-Lacassagne, 06000 Nice, France. Electronic address: emmanuel.chamorey@nice.unicancer.fr. 5. Maxillo-facial and plastic surgery department, Strasbourg university hospital, 67000 Strasbourg, France. Electronic address: lutz0@me.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Three-dimensional imaging of facial surfaces is a useful tool in different fields of cranio-facial, maxillo-facial and facial aesthetic surgery. Many devices that use several stereoscopic cameras are available but require a dedicated room. In contrast, the Vectra H-1 is a handheld device that can be used regardless of location but requires three consecutive acquisition and might therefore provide less accuracy. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility of the Vectra H1 device to validate its use in daily medical practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative analysis of the Vectra H1 device and a digital calliper was performed based on 23 distances measured among 11 facial landmarks. One operator repeated the procedure six times on a 24-year-old male volunteer to assess repeatability, and six operators performed the measurement procedure on a 22-year-old female volunteer to assess reproducibility. Repeatability, reproducibility and accuracy versus the distances measured were successively assessed by testing the correlations between the distances measured versus the coefficient of variation (CV) calculated for repeatability, reproducibility and accuracy. RESULTS: The CVs for all distances ranged from 0.34% to 1.53% and decreased linearly when distances measured increased, and this correlation was significant (P = 0.0026) for repeatability. The CVs for all distances ranged from 0.23% to 2.90% and decreased linearly as distances measured increased; there was a significant correlation (P = 0.00045) for reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the Vectra H1 provides an accurate linear assessment of clinical parameters and allows the accurate analysis of craniofacial morphology. Furthermore, this device costs less and requires less space than other multi-pod devices.
INTRODUCTION: Three-dimensional imaging of facial surfaces is a useful tool in different fields of cranio-facial, maxillo-facial and facial aesthetic surgery. Many devices that use several stereoscopic cameras are available but require a dedicated room. In contrast, the Vectra H-1 is a handheld device that can be used regardless of location but requires three consecutive acquisition and might therefore provide less accuracy. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility of the Vectra H1 device to validate its use in daily medical practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative analysis of the Vectra H1 device and a digital calliper was performed based on 23 distances measured among 11 facial landmarks. One operator repeated the procedure six times on a 24-year-old male volunteer to assess repeatability, and six operators performed the measurement procedure on a 22-year-old female volunteer to assess reproducibility. Repeatability, reproducibility and accuracy versus the distances measured were successively assessed by testing the correlations between the distances measured versus the coefficient of variation (CV) calculated for repeatability, reproducibility and accuracy. RESULTS: The CVs for all distances ranged from 0.34% to 1.53% and decreased linearly when distances measured increased, and this correlation was significant (P = 0.0026) for repeatability. The CVs for all distances ranged from 0.23% to 2.90% and decreased linearly as distances measured increased; there was a significant correlation (P = 0.00045) for reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the Vectra H1 provides an accurate linear assessment of clinical parameters and allows the accurate analysis of craniofacial morphology. Furthermore, this device costs less and requires less space than other multi-pod devices.
Authors: Alberto De Stefani; Martina Barone; Sam Hatami Alamdari; Arjola Barjami; Ugo Baciliero; Federico Apolloni; Antonio Gracco; Giovanni Bruno Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 4.614