Yongwei Guo1, Alexander C Rokohl1, Friederike Schaub1, Xiaoyi Hou1, Jinhua Liu1, Yue Ruan1, Renbing Jia2, Konrad R Koch1, Ludwig M Heindl3,4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Strasse 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Ninth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Strasse 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. ludwig.heindl@uk-koeln.de. 4. Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO) Aachen-Bonn-Cologne-Duesseldorf, Cologne, Germany. ludwig.heindl@uk-koeln.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Non-invasive three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry is becoming increasingly popular in many fields. However, few studies have focused on its periocular application. We aimed to provide evidence for the periocular application of a novel anthropometric procedure using 3D stereophotogrammetry by evaluating its reliability. METHODS: Fifty-one Caucasians were recruited (102 eyes; mean age, 31.9 ± 13.6 years). Two sets of 3D images were acquired for each subject, and two measurement sessions were performed on each image by two raters. Fifty-two periocular landmarks were identified, and then 49 corresponding linear, curvilinear, and angular measurements were evaluated for intrarater, interrater, and intramethod reliability. RESULTS: Our findings showed highly reliable results for mean absolute difference (0.59 and 0.68 unit), relative error measurement (2.66% and 3.08%), technical error of measurement (0.59 and 0.66 unit), relative technical error of measurement (2.71% and 2.96%), and intraclass correlation coefficient (0.98) for intrarater 1 and intrarater 2 reliability; respectively 0.94 unit, 4.06%, 0.89 unit, and 3.94%, as well as 0.97 for interrater reliability; and respectively 0.98 unit, 4.66%, 0.96 unit, and 4.64%, as well as 0.96 for intramethod reliability. CONCLUSIONS: This imaging system and the landmark identification protocol are highly reliable. The collected measurements and their errors can be applied for the comparison of reliability among various 3D imaging systems and populations. It could be utilized for planning surgeries and evaluating treatment outcomes for physicians in ophthalmology, plastic and esthetic surgery, and in the maxillofacial field where periocular morphology alterations are made.
PURPOSE: Non-invasive three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry is becoming increasingly popular in many fields. However, few studies have focused on its periocular application. We aimed to provide evidence for the periocular application of a novel anthropometric procedure using 3D stereophotogrammetry by evaluating its reliability. METHODS: Fifty-one Caucasians were recruited (102 eyes; mean age, 31.9 ± 13.6 years). Two sets of 3D images were acquired for each subject, and two measurement sessions were performed on each image by two raters. Fifty-two periocular landmarks were identified, and then 49 corresponding linear, curvilinear, and angular measurements were evaluated for intrarater, interrater, and intramethod reliability. RESULTS: Our findings showed highly reliable results for mean absolute difference (0.59 and 0.68 unit), relative error measurement (2.66% and 3.08%), technical error of measurement (0.59 and 0.66 unit), relative technical error of measurement (2.71% and 2.96%), and intraclass correlation coefficient (0.98) for intrarater 1 and intrarater 2 reliability; respectively 0.94 unit, 4.06%, 0.89 unit, and 3.94%, as well as 0.97 for interrater reliability; and respectively 0.98 unit, 4.66%, 0.96 unit, and 4.64%, as well as 0.96 for intramethod reliability. CONCLUSIONS: This imaging system and the landmark identification protocol are highly reliable. The collected measurements and their errors can be applied for the comparison of reliability among various 3D imaging systems and populations. It could be utilized for planning surgeries and evaluating treatment outcomes for physicians in ophthalmology, plastic and esthetic surgery, and in the maxillofacial field where periocular morphology alterations are made.
Authors: Kristina Aldridge; Simeon A Boyadjiev; George T Capone; Valerie B DeLeon; Joan T Richtsmeier Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2005-10-15 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: A Geeta; H Jamaiyah; M N Safiza; G L Khor; C C Kee; A Z Ahmad; S Suzana; R Rahmah; A Faudzi Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: H Schaaf; J Pons-Kuehnemann; C Y Malik; P Streckbein; M Preuss; H-P Howaldt; J-F Wilbrand Journal: Neuropediatrics Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 1.947
Authors: Carrie L Heike; Michael L Cunningham; Anne V Hing; Erik Stuhaug; Jacqueline R Starr Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Yongwei Guo; Ludwig M Heindl; Wanlin Fan; Alexander C Rokohl; Patrick Kupka; Xiaoyi Hou; Jinhua Liu; Senmao Li; Adam Kopecky; Sitong Ju; Philomena A Wawer Matos Journal: Ophthalmol Ther Date: 2022-10-16
Authors: Wanlin Fan; Yongwei Guo; Xiaoyi Hou; Jinhua Liu; Senmao Li; Sitong Ju; Philomena Alice Wawer Matos; Michael Simon; Alexander C Rokohl; Ludwig M Heindl Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-03-11
Authors: Xiaoyi Hou; Alexander C Rokohl; Yongwei Guo; Ludwig M Heindl; Marius M Meinke; Jinhua Liu; Senmao Li; Wanlin Fan; Ming Lin; Renbing Jia Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Xiaoyi Hou; Alexander C Rokohl; Marius M Meinke; Senmao Li; Jinhua Liu; Wanlin Fan; Ming Lin; Renbing Jia; Yongwei Guo; Ludwig M Heindl Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-08
Authors: Zhouxiao Li; Yimin Liang; Thilo Ludwig Schenck; Konstantin Frank; Riccardo Enzo Giunta; Konstantin Christoph Koban Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-01-06