Automatic software-based 3D-angular measurement for weight-bearing CT (WBCT) is valid

IF 1.9 3区医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Foot and Ankle Surgery Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.fas.2024.02.016

Martinus Richter, Stefan Zech, Issam Naef, Fabian Duerr, Regina Schilke

{"title":"Automatic software-based 3D-angular measurement for weight-bearing CT (WBCT) is valid","authors":"Martinus Richter, Stefan Zech, Issam Naef, Fabian Duerr, Regina Schilke","doi":"10.1016/j.fas.2024.02.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The purpose of this study was to compare automatic software-based angular measurement (AM) with validated measurement by hand (MBH) regarding angle values and time spent for Weight-Bearing CT (WBCT) generated datasets.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Five-hundred WBCT scans from different pathologies were included in the study. 1st - 2nd intermetatarsal angle, talo-1st metatarsal angle dorsoplantar and lateral, hindfoot angle, calcaneal pitch angle were measured and compared between MBH and AM.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The pathologies were ankle osteoarthritis/instability, n = 147 (29%); Haglund deformity/Achillodynia, n = 41 (8%); forefoot deformity, n = 108 (22%); Hallux rigidus, n = 37 (7%); flatfoot, n = 35 (7%); cavus foot, n = 10 (2%); osteoarthritis except ankle, n = 82 (16%). The angles did not differ between MBH and AM (each p > 0.36). The time spent for MBH / AM was 44.5 / 1 s on average per angle (p < .001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>AM provided angles which were not different from validated MBH and can be considered as <u>a</u> validated angle measurement method. The time spent was 97% lower for AM than for MBH.</p></div><div><h3>Levels of evidence</h3><p>Level III</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48743,"journal":{"name":"Foot and Ankle Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1268773124000419/pdfft?md5=07228434598df052a5ab0c4d2259f510&pid=1-s2.0-S1268773124000419-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot and Ankle Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1268773124000419","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare automatic software-based angular measurement (AM) with validated measurement by hand (MBH) regarding angle values and time spent for Weight-Bearing CT (WBCT) generated datasets.

Methods

Five-hundred WBCT scans from different pathologies were included in the study. 1st - 2nd intermetatarsal angle, talo-1st metatarsal angle dorsoplantar and lateral, hindfoot angle, calcaneal pitch angle were measured and compared between MBH and AM.

Results

The pathologies were ankle osteoarthritis/instability, n = 147 (29%); Haglund deformity/Achillodynia, n = 41 (8%); forefoot deformity, n = 108 (22%); Hallux rigidus, n = 37 (7%); flatfoot, n = 35 (7%); cavus foot, n = 10 (2%); osteoarthritis except ankle, n = 82 (16%). The angles did not differ between MBH and AM (each p > 0.36). The time spent for MBH / AM was 44.5 / 1 s on average per angle (p < .001).

Conclusions

AM provided angles which were not different from validated MBH and can be considered as a validated angle measurement method. The time spent was 97% lower for AM than for MBH.

Levels of evidence

Level III

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

基于软件的自动负重 CT（WBCT）三维角测量是有效的。

背景：本研究的目的是比较基于软件的自动角度测量（AM）和经过验证的手工测量（MBH）在负重 CT（WBCT）生成的数据集的角度值和花费的时间：研究包括五百个不同病理的 WBCT 扫描。测量第一-第二跖骨间角、距第一跖骨背跖和外侧角、后足角、小趾间距角，并在 MBH 和 AM 之间进行比较：病理类型包括：踝关节骨关节炎/不稳定性，147 人（29%）；Haglund 畸形/踝关节病，41 人（8%）；前足畸形，108 人（22%）；足外翻，37 人（7%）；扁平足，35 人（7%）；空洞足，10 人（2%）；除踝关节外的骨关节炎，82 人（16%）。MBH和AM的角度没有差异（各P>0.36）。MBH/AM每个角度所花费的时间平均为44.5/1秒（p 结论：MBH/AM每个角度所花费的时间平均为44.5/1秒：AM 提供的角度与经过验证的 MBH 没有差异，可视为经过验证的角度测量方法。AM 所花费的时间比 MBH 少 97%：证据等级：三级。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Foot and Ankle Surgery ORTHOPEDICS-

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

16.00%

发文量

202

期刊介绍： Foot and Ankle Surgery is essential reading for everyone interested in the foot and ankle and its disorders. The approach is broad and includes all aspects of the subject from basic science to clinical management. Problems of both children and adults are included, as is trauma and chronic disease. Foot and Ankle Surgery is the official journal of European Foot and Ankle Society. The aims of this journal are to promote the art and science of ankle and foot surgery, to publish peer-reviewed research articles, to provide regular reviews by acknowledged experts on common problems, and to provide a forum for discussion with letters to the Editors. Reviews of books are also published. Papers are invited for possible publication in Foot and Ankle Surgery on the understanding that the material has not been published elsewhere or accepted for publication in another journal and does not infringe prior copyright.