基于医学三维重建软件的三维骨重建精度评价

Yuanjing Xu, L. Zhiyuan, Liu Yihao, Yang Zezheng, Keming Wan, Fei Liu, Jinwu Wang, K. Dai
{"title":"基于医学三维重建软件的三维骨重建精度评价","authors":"Yuanjing Xu, L. Zhiyuan, Liu Yihao, Yang Zezheng, Keming Wan, Fei Liu, Jinwu Wang, K. Dai","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1671-7600.2019.10.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo investigate the feasibility of an accuracy evaluation method for 3D reconstructed bone model based on 3D reconstruction software Arigin3D Pro. \n \n \nMethods \nPig femurs were used as solid models which were scanned by CT and MRI respectively. The scan data were imported into software Arigin3D Pro for 3D model reconstruction by 3 operators with different reconstruction experience (≤1 year, 2 to 3 years, and ≥4 years, respectively). Each operator reconstructed the femurs 3 times and in each reconstruction measured the diameter of the femoral head, the length of the femur and the width of the knee joint at the distal end of the femur 3 times respectively using software Geomagic Wrap. The above parameters of the solid models were measured using a vernier caliper. The parameter values of reconstructed models and solid models were compared and the differences were analyzed. \n \n \nResults \nThe measurements by Geomagic Wrap showed deviations between the CT and MRI reconstruction models and the solid models, and the maximum deviation percentages were 1.47% and 1.08%, respectively. The percentages of intra-operater difference ranged from 0.29% to 1.53%; the 3D models reconstructed by operators with different reconstruction experience were not identical. \n \n \nConclusions \nIt is a feasible accuracy evaluation method to compare key parameters between the 3D bone model reconstructed by software Arigin3D Pro and the real animal bone. The deviations of 3D reconstructed bone model based on CT and MRI images are acceptable. The accuracy of 3D bone construction is related to the difference in operators. \n \n \nKey words: \nSkeleton; Software; Imaging, three-dimensional; Medical images; Accuracy","PeriodicalId":10145,"journal":{"name":"中华创伤骨科杂志","volume":"21 1","pages":"894-900"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy evaluation for 3D bone reconstruction based on medical 3D reconstruction software\",\"authors\":\"Yuanjing Xu, L. Zhiyuan, Liu Yihao, Yang Zezheng, Keming Wan, Fei Liu, Jinwu Wang, K. Dai\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1671-7600.2019.10.013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective \\nTo investigate the feasibility of an accuracy evaluation method for 3D reconstructed bone model based on 3D reconstruction software Arigin3D Pro. \\n \\n \\nMethods \\nPig femurs were used as solid models which were scanned by CT and MRI respectively. The scan data were imported into software Arigin3D Pro for 3D model reconstruction by 3 operators with different reconstruction experience (≤1 year, 2 to 3 years, and ≥4 years, respectively). Each operator reconstructed the femurs 3 times and in each reconstruction measured the diameter of the femoral head, the length of the femur and the width of the knee joint at the distal end of the femur 3 times respectively using software Geomagic Wrap. The above parameters of the solid models were measured using a vernier caliper. The parameter values of reconstructed models and solid models were compared and the differences were analyzed. \\n \\n \\nResults \\nThe measurements by Geomagic Wrap showed deviations between the CT and MRI reconstruction models and the solid models, and the maximum deviation percentages were 1.47% and 1.08%, respectively. The percentages of intra-operater difference ranged from 0.29% to 1.53%; the 3D models reconstructed by operators with different reconstruction experience were not identical. \\n \\n \\nConclusions \\nIt is a feasible accuracy evaluation method to compare key parameters between the 3D bone model reconstructed by software Arigin3D Pro and the real animal bone. The deviations of 3D reconstructed bone model based on CT and MRI images are acceptable. The accuracy of 3D bone construction is related to the difference in operators. \\n \\n \\nKey words: \\nSkeleton; Software; Imaging, three-dimensional; Medical images; Accuracy\",\"PeriodicalId\":10145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华创伤骨科杂志\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"894-900\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华创伤骨科杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1671-7600.2019.10.013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华创伤骨科杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1671-7600.2019.10.013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的探讨基于三维重建软件Arigin3DPro的三维重建骨模型精度评估方法的可行性。方法以猪股骨为实体模型,分别进行CT和MRI扫描。将扫描数据导入Arigin3D Pro软件,由3名具有不同重建经验(分别为≤1年、2-3年和≥4年)的操作员进行三维模型重建。每个操作员重建股骨3次,在每次重建中,使用Geomagic Wrap软件分别测量股骨头的直径、股骨的长度和股骨远端膝关节的宽度3次。使用游标卡尺测量实体模型的上述参数。将重建模型和实体模型的参数值进行比较,并分析其差异。结果Geomagic Wrap测量显示CT和MRI重建模型与实体模型之间存在偏差,最大偏差百分比分别为1.47%和1.08%。术中差异百分比为0.29%~1.53%;具有不同重建经验的操作员重建的3D模型并不相同。结论将Arigin3DPro软件重建的三维骨骼模型与真实动物骨骼的关键参数进行比较,是一种可行的准确性评估方法。基于CT和MRI图像的三维重建骨模型的偏差是可以接受的。三维骨骼构造的准确性与操作者的差异有关。关键词:骨架;软件;成像,三维;医学图像;准确性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Accuracy evaluation for 3D bone reconstruction based on medical 3D reconstruction software
Objective To investigate the feasibility of an accuracy evaluation method for 3D reconstructed bone model based on 3D reconstruction software Arigin3D Pro. Methods Pig femurs were used as solid models which were scanned by CT and MRI respectively. The scan data were imported into software Arigin3D Pro for 3D model reconstruction by 3 operators with different reconstruction experience (≤1 year, 2 to 3 years, and ≥4 years, respectively). Each operator reconstructed the femurs 3 times and in each reconstruction measured the diameter of the femoral head, the length of the femur and the width of the knee joint at the distal end of the femur 3 times respectively using software Geomagic Wrap. The above parameters of the solid models were measured using a vernier caliper. The parameter values of reconstructed models and solid models were compared and the differences were analyzed. Results The measurements by Geomagic Wrap showed deviations between the CT and MRI reconstruction models and the solid models, and the maximum deviation percentages were 1.47% and 1.08%, respectively. The percentages of intra-operater difference ranged from 0.29% to 1.53%; the 3D models reconstructed by operators with different reconstruction experience were not identical. Conclusions It is a feasible accuracy evaluation method to compare key parameters between the 3D bone model reconstructed by software Arigin3D Pro and the real animal bone. The deviations of 3D reconstructed bone model based on CT and MRI images are acceptable. The accuracy of 3D bone construction is related to the difference in operators. Key words: Skeleton; Software; Imaging, three-dimensional; Medical images; Accuracy
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7288
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Emergent foot and ankle surgery in the epidemic of COVID-19 Procedures and strategies for sterilization and management of surgical instruments for patients with orthopaedic trauma during COVID-19 epidemic Bone cement-enhanced proximal femoral nail antirotation for treatment of severe osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture Current and future management of hip fracture in the elderly Intercondylar ridge fracture: broad and narrow definitions and their clinical significance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1