Suppr超能文献

使用中心线分析应用程序进行介入前测量的精确程度如何?客观真值评估揭示了特定软件的中心线特征。

How Precise Are Preinterventional Measurements Using Centerline Analysis Applications? Objective Ground Truth Evaluation Reveals Software-Specific Centerline Characteristics.

作者信息

Hoegen Philipp, Wörz Stefan, Müller-Eschner Matthias, Geisbüsch Philipp, Liao Wei, Rohr Karl, Schmitt Matthias, Rengier Fabian, Kauczor Hans-Ulrich, von Tengg-Kobligk Hendrik

机构信息

1 Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.

2 Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.

出版信息

J Endovasc Ther. 2017 Aug;24(4):584-594. doi: 10.1177/1526602817713737. Epub 2017 Jun 7.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To evaluate different centerline analysis applications using objective ground truth from realistic aortic aneurysm phantoms with precisely defined geometry and centerlines to overcome the lack of unknown true dimensions in previously published in vivo validation studies.

METHODS

Three aortic phantoms were created using computer-aided design (CAD) software and a 3-dimensional (3D) printer. Computed tomography angiograms (CTAs) of phantoms and 3 patients were analyzed with 3 clinically approved and 1 research software application. The 3D centerline coordinates, intraluminal diameters, and lengths were validated against CAD ground truth using a dedicated evaluation software platform.

RESULTS

The 3D centerline position mean error ranged from 0.7±0.8 to 2.9±2.5 mm between tested applications. All applications calculated centerlines significantly different from ground truth. Diameter mean errors varied from 0.5±1.2 to 1.1±1.0 mm among 3 applications, but exceeded 8.0±11.0 mm with one application due to an unsteady distortion of luminal dimensions along the centerline. All tested commercially available software tools systematically underestimated centerline total lengths by -4.6±0.9 mm to -10.4±4.3 mm (maximum error -14.6 mm). Applications with the highest 3D centerline accuracy yielded the most precise diameter and length measurements.

CONCLUSION

One clinically approved application did not provide reproducible centerline-based analysis results, while another approved application showed length errors that might influence stent-graft choice and procedure success. The variety and specific characteristics of endovascular aneurysm repair planning software tools require scientific evaluation and user awareness.

摘要

目的

利用具有精确界定几何形状和中心线的逼真主动脉瘤模型的客观真实数据,评估不同的中心线分析应用,以克服先前发表的体内验证研究中缺乏未知真实尺寸的问题。

方法

使用计算机辅助设计(CAD)软件和三维(3D)打印机制作了三个主动脉模型。对模型和三名患者的计算机断层血管造影(CTA)进行了分析,使用了三种临床认可的和一种研究软件应用程序。使用专用评估软件平台,将三维中心线坐标、管腔内直径和长度与CAD真实数据进行验证。

结果

在测试的应用程序之间,三维中心线位置平均误差范围为0.7±0.8至2.9±2.5毫米。所有应用程序计算出的中心线与真实数据有显著差异。三种应用程序的直径平均误差在0.5±1.2至1.1±1.0毫米之间,但由于管腔尺寸沿中心线的不稳定变形,一种应用程序的误差超过了8.0±11.0毫米。所有测试的商用软件工具都系统地低估了中心线总长度,误差为-4.6±0.9毫米至-10.4±4.3毫米(最大误差-14.6毫米)。三维中心线精度最高的应用程序得出的直径和长度测量结果最精确。

结论

一种临床认可的应用程序没有提供基于中心线的可重复分析结果,而另一种认可的应用程序显示出的长度误差可能会影响支架移植物的选择和手术成功率。血管内动脉瘤修复规划软件工具的多样性和特定特征需要科学评估和用户认知。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验