Almadori Aurora, Speiser Sophie, Ashby Imogen, Lacher René, Bishop David, Mosahebi Afshin, Butler Peter Em
Department of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, London, United Kingdom; UCL Centre for Nanotechnology and Regenerative Medicine, Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom; The Charles Wolfson Centre for Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free Hospital Campus, University College of London, London, United Kingdom.
UCL Centre for Nanotechnology and Regenerative Medicine, Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom; The Charles Wolfson Centre for Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free Hospital Campus, University College of London, London, United Kingdom.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022 Sep;75(9):3574-3585. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.04.042. Epub 2022 Apr 28.
Multiple handheld three-dimensional (3D) systems are available on the market, but data regarding their use in detecting small volumes are limited. The aim of this study was to compare different portable 3D technologies in detecting small volumetric enhancement on a mannequin model and a series of patients. Five portable 3D systems (Artec Eva, Crisalix, Go!Scan, LifeViz Mini, and Vectra H1) were tested in a controlled environment with standardised volumes and in a clinical setting with patients undergoing small volume fat grafting to face, vulva, and hand. Accuracy was assessed with absolute and relative technical error measurement (TEM and rTEM); precision with intra- and inter-observer reliability (r and ICC); and usability in clinical practice with the following parameters: portability, suitability of use in operating theatre/clinic, ease of use of hardware and software, speed of capture, image quality, patient comfort, and cost. All tested devices presented overall good accuracy in detecting small volumetric changes ranging from 0.5 to 4 cc. Structured-light laser scanners (Artec Eva and Go!Scan) showed high accuracy, but their use in clinical practice was limited by longer capture time, multiple wiring, and complex software for analysis. Crisalix was considered the most user-friendly, less bothering for patients, and truly portable, but its use was limited to the face because the software does not include vulva and hand. Three-dimensional technologies exploiting the principle of passive stereophotogrammetry such as LifeViz Mini and Vectra H1 were the most versatile for assessing accurately multiple body areas, representing overall the best long-term value for money. Therefore, 3D portable technology is a non-invasive, accurate, and reproducible method to assess the volumetric outcome after facial, vulval, and hand injectables. The choice of the 3D system should be based on the clinical need and resources available.
市面上有多种手持式三维（3D）系统，但关于它们在检测小体积方面应用的数据有限。本研究的目的是比较不同的便携式3D技术在人体模型和一系列患者中检测小体积增强的情况。五种便携式3D系统（Artec Eva、Crisalix、Go!Scan、LifeViz Mini和Vectra H1）在具有标准化体积的受控环境中以及在临床环境中对接受面部、外阴和手部小体积脂肪移植的患者进行了测试。通过绝对和相对技术误差测量（TEM和rTEM）评估准确性；通过观察者内和观察者间可靠性（r和ICC）评估精密度；并通过以下参数评估临床实践中的可用性：便携性、在手术室/诊所使用的适用性、硬件和软件的易用性、采集速度、图像质量、患者舒适度和成本。所有测试设备在检测0.5至4立方厘米的小体积变化方面总体准确性良好。结构光激光扫描仪（Artec Eva和Go!Scan）显示出高精度，但它们在临床实践中的应用受到采集时间长、布线多以及分析软件复杂的限制。Crisalix被认为是最用户友好的，对患者干扰较小且真正便携，但它的应用仅限于面部，因为该软件不包括外阴和手部。利用被动立体摄影测量原理的三维技术，如LifeViz Mini和Vectra H1，在准确评估多个身体部位方面最为通用，总体上代表了最佳的长期性价比。因此，3D便携式技术是一种评估面部、外阴和手部注射后体积结果的非侵入性、准确且可重复的方法。3D系统的选择应基于临床需求和可用资源。
