二维与三维超声前列腺模型体积测量准确度的比较。

Soo-Youn Park, S. Hwang
{"title":"二维与三维超声前列腺模型体积测量准确度的比较。","authors":"Soo-Youn Park, S. Hwang","doi":"10.5580/2ba9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare accuracy of prostate model volume measurement between 2 dimensional (2D) and 3 dimensional ultrasonography (3D). Materials and Methods: Sixty prostate models were made using devil’s tongue jelly and shaped by cutting the surface. To compare the accuracy of prostate model volume measurement according to the size and shape of the prostate model, 60 models were divided into four groups according to shape (ellipsoid vs. ellipsoid–intravesical prostate protrusion, IPP) and size (20-50ml vs. 50-80ml). In vitro measurement of prostate models using 2D-HWL, 3D Axial mode, and 3D Sagittal mode was performed and compared. Statistical analysis including simple regression analysis, Bland-Altman plot, and paired samples t-test were performed.Results: The percentage of error in the measurement of ellipsoid prostate models (20 – 80ml) was 4.50% ± 2.33 (3D Sagittal mode), 4.85% ± 1.66 (3D Axial mode), 7.09% ± 2.60 (2D HWL) and there was no statistically different accuracy comparing to true prostate model volume among three measurement methods. Pierson’s correlation coefficient revealed higher positive correlation between true volume and measured volume; 0.977 (3D Sagittal mode), 0.976 (3D Axial mode), 0.964 (2D HWL) in the ellipsoid prostate models measurement and 0.989 (3D Sagittal mode), 0.979 (3D Axial mode), 0.941 (2D HWL) in the ellipsoid-IPP model measurement. However, the percentage of error in the measurement of ellipsoid-IPP prostate models (20 – 80ml) was 4.87% ± 2.74 (3D Sagittal mode), 7.04% ± 3.36 (3D Axial mode), 23.56% ± 13.63 (2D HWL), and 2D HWL showed significantly different volume measurement comparing to true volume (p< 0.001). In addition, there was statistically significant difference between 3D Axial mode measurement and true volume (p=0.047) in the measurement of ellipsoid-IPP prostate models (50 – 80ml). Bland-Altman plot showed higher percentage of mean difference between 2D HWL and true volume in the measurement of ellipsoid-IPP prostate models (20 – 80ml). Conclusion: In measuring prostate model volume, the 3D Sagittal mode is better than 3D Axial mode or 2D HWL measurement, especially irregular larger and IPP prostate models.","PeriodicalId":22526,"journal":{"name":"The Internet Journal of Radiology","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Of Accuracy Of Prostate Model Volume Measurement Between 2 Dimensional And 3 Dimensional Ultrasonography.\",\"authors\":\"Soo-Youn Park, S. Hwang\",\"doi\":\"10.5580/2ba9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To compare accuracy of prostate model volume measurement between 2 dimensional (2D) and 3 dimensional ultrasonography (3D). Materials and Methods: Sixty prostate models were made using devil’s tongue jelly and shaped by cutting the surface. To compare the accuracy of prostate model volume measurement according to the size and shape of the prostate model, 60 models were divided into four groups according to shape (ellipsoid vs. ellipsoid–intravesical prostate protrusion, IPP) and size (20-50ml vs. 50-80ml). In vitro measurement of prostate models using 2D-HWL, 3D Axial mode, and 3D Sagittal mode was performed and compared. Statistical analysis including simple regression analysis, Bland-Altman plot, and paired samples t-test were performed.Results: The percentage of error in the measurement of ellipsoid prostate models (20 – 80ml) was 4.50% ± 2.33 (3D Sagittal mode), 4.85% ± 1.66 (3D Axial mode), 7.09% ± 2.60 (2D HWL) and there was no statistically different accuracy comparing to true prostate model volume among three measurement methods. Pierson’s correlation coefficient revealed higher positive correlation between true volume and measured volume; 0.977 (3D Sagittal mode), 0.976 (3D Axial mode), 0.964 (2D HWL) in the ellipsoid prostate models measurement and 0.989 (3D Sagittal mode), 0.979 (3D Axial mode), 0.941 (2D HWL) in the ellipsoid-IPP model measurement. However, the percentage of error in the measurement of ellipsoid-IPP prostate models (20 – 80ml) was 4.87% ± 2.74 (3D Sagittal mode), 7.04% ± 3.36 (3D Axial mode), 23.56% ± 13.63 (2D HWL), and 2D HWL showed significantly different volume measurement comparing to true volume (p< 0.001). In addition, there was statistically significant difference between 3D Axial mode measurement and true volume (p=0.047) in the measurement of ellipsoid-IPP prostate models (50 – 80ml). Bland-Altman plot showed higher percentage of mean difference between 2D HWL and true volume in the measurement of ellipsoid-IPP prostate models (20 – 80ml). Conclusion: In measuring prostate model volume, the 3D Sagittal mode is better than 3D Axial mode or 2D HWL measurement, especially irregular larger and IPP prostate models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22526,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Internet Journal of Radiology\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Internet Journal of Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5580/2ba9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Internet Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5580/2ba9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:比较二维(2D)和三维(3D)超声测量前列腺模型体积的准确性。材料与方法:采用魔鬼舌胶制作前列腺模型60例,经表面切割成型。为了比较根据前列腺模型的大小和形状测量前列腺模型体积的准确性,将60个模型根据形状(椭球体vs椭球体-膀胱内前列腺突出,IPP)和大小(20-50ml vs 50-80ml)分为4组。采用2D-HWL、3D轴向模式和3D矢状模式对前列腺模型进行体外测量并进行比较。统计分析包括简单回归分析、Bland-Altman图和配对样本t检验。结果:椭球前列腺模型(20 ~ 80ml)测量误差百分比分别为4.50%±2.33(三维矢状模式)、4.85%±1.66(三维轴向模式)、7.09%±2.60(二维HWL模式),三种测量方法与真实前列腺模型体积的准确度比较无统计学差异。Pierson相关系数显示真实体积与实测体积呈较高正相关;椭球前列腺模型测量0.977 (3D矢状模式)、0.976 (3D轴向模式)、0.964 (2D HWL);椭球- ipp模型测量0.989 (3D矢状模式)、0.979 (3D轴向模式)、0.941 (2D HWL)。然而,椭球- ipp前列腺模型(20 - 80ml)测量误差百分比分别为4.87%±2.74(三维矢状模式)、7.04%±3.36(三维轴向模式)、23.56%±13.63 (2D HWL),且2D HWL测量的体积与真实体积差异有统计学意义(p< 0.001)。此外,椭球- ipp前列腺模型(50 ~ 80ml)三维轴向模式测量与真体积测量差异有统计学意义(p=0.047)。Bland-Altman图显示椭球- ipp前列腺模型(20 - 80ml)测量时二维HWL与真实体积的平均差值百分比较高。结论:在测量前列腺模型体积时,三维矢状位模式优于三维轴位模式或二维HWL测量,尤其是不规则较大和IPP前列腺模型。
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
Comparison Of Accuracy Of Prostate Model Volume Measurement Between 2 Dimensional And 3 Dimensional Ultrasonography.
Purpose: To compare accuracy of prostate model volume measurement between 2 dimensional (2D) and 3 dimensional ultrasonography (3D). Materials and Methods: Sixty prostate models were made using devil’s tongue jelly and shaped by cutting the surface. To compare the accuracy of prostate model volume measurement according to the size and shape of the prostate model, 60 models were divided into four groups according to shape (ellipsoid vs. ellipsoid–intravesical prostate protrusion, IPP) and size (20-50ml vs. 50-80ml). In vitro measurement of prostate models using 2D-HWL, 3D Axial mode, and 3D Sagittal mode was performed and compared. Statistical analysis including simple regression analysis, Bland-Altman plot, and paired samples t-test were performed.Results: The percentage of error in the measurement of ellipsoid prostate models (20 – 80ml) was 4.50% ± 2.33 (3D Sagittal mode), 4.85% ± 1.66 (3D Axial mode), 7.09% ± 2.60 (2D HWL) and there was no statistically different accuracy comparing to true prostate model volume among three measurement methods. Pierson’s correlation coefficient revealed higher positive correlation between true volume and measured volume; 0.977 (3D Sagittal mode), 0.976 (3D Axial mode), 0.964 (2D HWL) in the ellipsoid prostate models measurement and 0.989 (3D Sagittal mode), 0.979 (3D Axial mode), 0.941 (2D HWL) in the ellipsoid-IPP model measurement. However, the percentage of error in the measurement of ellipsoid-IPP prostate models (20 – 80ml) was 4.87% ± 2.74 (3D Sagittal mode), 7.04% ± 3.36 (3D Axial mode), 23.56% ± 13.63 (2D HWL), and 2D HWL showed significantly different volume measurement comparing to true volume (p< 0.001). In addition, there was statistically significant difference between 3D Axial mode measurement and true volume (p=0.047) in the measurement of ellipsoid-IPP prostate models (50 – 80ml). Bland-Altman plot showed higher percentage of mean difference between 2D HWL and true volume in the measurement of ellipsoid-IPP prostate models (20 – 80ml). Conclusion: In measuring prostate model volume, the 3D Sagittal mode is better than 3D Axial mode or 2D HWL measurement, especially irregular larger and IPP prostate models.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Religion Being Trini and Representing Trinidad Doing Business Online Conclusions Trinidad and the Internet – An Overview
×
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