Stievenart J L, Cabanis E A, Menard P, Knoplioch J, Lopez A, Tamraz J, Iba-Zizen M T, Philippe B, Prevost G, Bertrand J C
Service de Neuroradiologie, Centre Hospitalier National d'Ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts, Paris, France.
Surg Radiol Anat. 1993;15(1):47-54. doi: 10.1007/BF01629862.
In view of the variety of 3D representation techniques, a clinical study was carried out in order to evaluate their respective usefulness. It appears that a single technique cannot be claimed to be valid for all clinical situations and that a combination of representations brings more relevant information. Among the different techniques a clear delineation must be established between those which allow the accurate definition of landmarks (multiplanar reformation, surface representation), and those which do not (integral shading, reconstructed radiology). The main point is the possibility to recognize anatomical landmarks on these latter modes and to choose oblique cut planes in relation to them. Visualization quality is strongly dependent upon the acquisition protocol which must provide a spatial resolution as isotropic as possible.
鉴于3D呈现技术的多样性，开展了一项临床研究以评估它们各自的实用性。似乎没有一种单一技术能被宣称对所有临床情况都有效，而多种呈现方式的组合能带来更多相关信息。在不同技术中，必须明确区分那些能准确界定解剖标志点的技术（多平面重组、表面呈现）和不能做到这一点的技术（整体阴影法、重建放射学）。关键在于能否在后者这些模式下识别解剖标志点，并据此选择斜切面。可视化质量在很大程度上取决于采集协议，该协议必须提供尽可能各向同性的空间分辨率。
