Niek Wijnen1, Lars Brouwers2, Erik Groot Jebbink3, Jan M M Heyligers2, Mike Bemelman2. 1. University of Twente, Technical Medicine, Enschede, The Netherlands. 2. Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital, Department of Surgery, Tilburg, Noord-Brabant, The Netherlands. 3. University of Twente, Technical Medical Centre, Multi-Modality Medical Imaging Group, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Purpose: In-hospital three-dimensional (3D) printing of patient-specific pathologies is increasingly being used in daily care. However, the efficiency of the current conversion from image to print is often obstructed due to limitations associated with segmentation software. Therefore, there is a need for comparison of several clinically available tools. A comparative study has been conducted to compare segmentation performance of Philips IntelliSpace Portal® (PISP), Mimics Innovation Suite (MIS), and DICOM to PRINT® (D2P). Approach: These tools were compared with respect to segmentation time and 3D mesh quality. The dataset consisted of three computed tomography (CT)-scans of acetabular fractures (ACs), three CT-scans of tibia plateau fractures (TPs), and three CTA-scans of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Independent-samples t -tests were performed to compare the measured segmentation times. Furthermore, 3D mesh quality was assessed and compared according to representativeness and usability for the surgeon. Results: Statistically significant differences in segmentation time were found between PISP and MIS with respect to the segmentation of ACs ( p = < 0.001 ) and AAAs ( p = 0.031 ). Furthermore, statistically significant differences in segmentation time were found between PISP and D2P for segmentations of AAAs ( p = 0.008 ). There were no statistically significant differences in segmentation time for TPs. The accumulated mesh quality scores were highest for segmentations performed in MIS, followed by D2P. Conclusion: Based on segmentation time and mesh quality, MIS and D2P are capable of enhancing the in-hospital 3D print workflow. However, they should be integrated with the picture archiving and communication system to truly improve the workflow. In addition, these software packages are not open source and additional costs must be incurred.
Purpose: In-hospital three-dimensional (3D) printing of patient-specific pathologies is increasingly being used in daily care. However, the efficiency of the current conversion from image to print is often obstructed due to limitations associated with segmentation software. Therefore, there is a need for comparison of several clinically available tools. A comparative study has been conducted to compare segmentation performance of Philips IntelliSpace Portal® (PISP), Mimics Innovation Suite (MIS), and DICOM to PRINT® (D2P). Approach: These tools were compared with respect to segmentation time and 3D mesh quality. The dataset consisted of three computed tomography (CT)-scans of acetabular fractures (ACs), three CT-scans of tibia plateau fractures (TPs), and three CTA-scans of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Independent-samples t -tests were performed to compare the measured segmentation times. Furthermore, 3D mesh quality was assessed and compared according to representativeness and usability for the surgeon. Results: Statistically significant differences in segmentation time were found between PISP and MIS with respect to the segmentation of ACs ( p = < 0.001 ) and AAAs ( p = 0.031 ). Furthermore, statistically significant differences in segmentation time were found between PISP and D2P for segmentations of AAAs ( p = 0.008 ). There were no statistically significant differences in segmentation time for TPs. The accumulated mesh quality scores were highest for segmentations performed in MIS, followed by D2P. Conclusion: Based on segmentation time and mesh quality, MIS and D2P are capable of enhancing the in-hospital 3D print workflow. However, they should be integrated with the picture archiving and communication system to truly improve the workflow. In addition, these software packages are not open source and additional costs must be incurred.
Authors: Michael Jermyn; Hamid Ghadyani; Michael A Mastanduno; Wes Turner; Scott C Davis; Hamid Dehghani; Brian W Pogue Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Aleksandra Piechota-Polanczyk; Alicja Jozkowicz; Witold Nowak; Wolf Eilenberg; Christoph Neumayer; Tadeusz Malinski; Ihor Huk; Christine Brostjan Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2015-05-26
Authors: Lars Brouwers; Arno Teutelink; Fiek A J B van Tilborg; Mariska A C de Jongh; Koen W W Lansink; Mike Bemelman Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Elke Arts; Han Nijsink; Luc Verhamme; Jan Biert; Mike Bemelman; Lars Brouwers; Bas van Wageningen Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.693