Y Guo1, J Liu2, Y Ruan2, A C Rokohl2, X Hou2, S Li2, R Jia3, K R Koch2, L M Heindl4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany; Eye Center, 2nd Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany; Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO) Aachen-Bonn-Cologne-Duesseldorf, Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: ludwig.heindl@uk-koeln.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The measurement of anatomical structures is critical in plastic and reconstructive surgery. However, few detailed and standardized measurements have been widely used in the periorbital region. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a novel detailed and standardized protocol with 2D and 3D technologies, and explore the relationship between them and direct measurements. METHODS: Fifty healthy Caucasians (100 eyes) between 20 and 68 years old were recruited and captured for 3D photographs by VECTRA M3 3D Imaging System. Subsequently, 24 landmarks were located on each 3D photographs following a standardized protocol, and then 19 linear and 3 angular periorbital variables were measured. Furthermore, two-dimensional (2D) and direct measurements were conducted on each subject and compared with 3D measurements and one another. RESULTS: The grand r means across all measurements were 0.77, 0.78, and 0.88 for direct vs. 2D values, direct vs. 3D values, and 3D vs. 2D values, respectively. The mean absolute differences were 1 mm (ranging from 0.2 mm to 3.7 mm) between direct and 3D measurements, 1 mm (ranging from 0.04 mm to 2.4 mm) between direct and 2D measurements, and 1 mm and 6.6° (ranging from 0.04 mm or 0.5° to 3 mm or 12.8°) between 2D and 3D measurements. CONCLUSIONS: This study verified the feasibility of this detailed and standardized landmark localization protocol for assessing the periorbital morphology with 2D and 3D technologies. This protocol may work as a bridge communicating with all studies involving any of the three technologies in the future.
BACKGROUND: The measurement of anatomical structures is critical in plastic and reconstructive surgery. However, few detailed and standardized measurements have been widely used in the periorbital region. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a novel detailed and standardized protocol with 2D and 3D technologies, and explore the relationship between them and direct measurements. METHODS: Fifty healthy Caucasians (100 eyes) between 20 and 68 years old were recruited and captured for 3D photographs by VECTRA M3 3D Imaging System. Subsequently, 24 landmarks were located on each 3D photographs following a standardized protocol, and then 19 linear and 3 angular periorbital variables were measured. Furthermore, two-dimensional (2D) and direct measurements were conducted on each subject and compared with 3D measurements and one another. RESULTS: The grand r means across all measurements were 0.77, 0.78, and 0.88 for direct vs. 2D values, direct vs. 3D values, and 3D vs. 2D values, respectively. The mean absolute differences were 1 mm (ranging from 0.2 mm to 3.7 mm) between direct and 3D measurements, 1 mm (ranging from 0.04 mm to 2.4 mm) between direct and 2D measurements, and 1 mm and 6.6° (ranging from 0.04 mm or 0.5° to 3 mm or 12.8°) between 2D and 3D measurements. CONCLUSIONS: This study verified the feasibility of this detailed and standardized landmark localization protocol for assessing the periorbital morphology with 2D and 3D technologies. This protocol may work as a bridge communicating with all studies involving any of the three technologies in the future.
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; 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