Logo Logo
Help
Contact
Switch language to German
Reliability and comparison of 3-dimensional surface imaging of the face using a hand-held and whole body surface scanner
Reliability and comparison of 3-dimensional surface imaging of the face using a hand-held and whole body surface scanner
Objective: 3-Dimensional surface (3DSI) imaging has been shown to be a useful tool for plastic surgeons in the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative setting. And to the knowledge of the authors no data about the reproducibility and accuracy of 3-Dimensional surface imaging of the face using a whole-body scanner is available. Thus, the objective of this investigation was to assess the reproducibility of facial scans acquired using a whole-body imaging device and to compare the precision of distance measurements in the face using a hand-held surface imaging device and a whole-body surface imaging device. Furthermore, the reproducibility of the whole body scanner was investigated. Material and Methods: This investigation enrolled a total of 22 healthy volunteers with a mean age of 29.36 years. Two consecutive 3-D images of the volunteers were obtained utilizing a whole-body imaging device(WB360) and a hand-hold imaging device(Vectra H2). For the whole-body imaging predefined distances in the face were performed in each scan and compared. Furthermore, surface deviation between two consecutively captured scans was assessed. Results: For the reliability of whole-body scan, the distance with the smallest statistical significance was found to be at the nose with p = 0.998, while the biggest statistical significance was found in the midface with p = 0.658. The area with the biggest surface deviation between the superimposed scans was the neck with a RMS of 1.62 ± 1.71 mm and the area with the smallest surface deviation was the forehead with a RMS of 0.17 ± 0.05 mm. For the comparison of the both scanners our results revealed that the measured difference between the length and the standard reference did not differ statistically significant between the two investigated devices in all investigated areas of the face (p > 0.266), however the measured difference of the width and the width of the standard reference differed statistically significant in all areas of the face across the investigated devices (p < 0.032). Conclusion: The whole – body-imaging device investigated in this study can be utilized to capture the face and provides enough accuracy to compare scans. Even though not directly investigated, it can be hypothesized that the error caused by repositioning the patient between a baseline and a follow – up scan will not be too big to consider measurements performed with the whole – body-imaging device as impractical. Both, measurements obtained from scans acquired using the hand held imaging device and the whole – body-imaging device differed significantly from the standard reference. Users should be aware of deviations when obtaining 3DSI using the presented imaging devices but should not refrain from using them, as the absolute differences might be too small to play a role in both, clinical and research, setting.
3-Dimensional, Surface Imaging, Hand-held Scanner, Whole-body Scanner
Xu, Ya
2022
English
Universitätsbibliothek der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Xu, Ya (2022): Reliability and comparison of 3-dimensional surface imaging of the face using a hand-held and whole body surface scanner. Dissertation, LMU München: Faculty of Medicine
[img]
Preview
PDF
Xu_Ya.pdf

1MB

Abstract

Objective: 3-Dimensional surface (3DSI) imaging has been shown to be a useful tool for plastic surgeons in the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative setting. And to the knowledge of the authors no data about the reproducibility and accuracy of 3-Dimensional surface imaging of the face using a whole-body scanner is available. Thus, the objective of this investigation was to assess the reproducibility of facial scans acquired using a whole-body imaging device and to compare the precision of distance measurements in the face using a hand-held surface imaging device and a whole-body surface imaging device. Furthermore, the reproducibility of the whole body scanner was investigated. Material and Methods: This investigation enrolled a total of 22 healthy volunteers with a mean age of 29.36 years. Two consecutive 3-D images of the volunteers were obtained utilizing a whole-body imaging device(WB360) and a hand-hold imaging device(Vectra H2). For the whole-body imaging predefined distances in the face were performed in each scan and compared. Furthermore, surface deviation between two consecutively captured scans was assessed. Results: For the reliability of whole-body scan, the distance with the smallest statistical significance was found to be at the nose with p = 0.998, while the biggest statistical significance was found in the midface with p = 0.658. The area with the biggest surface deviation between the superimposed scans was the neck with a RMS of 1.62 ± 1.71 mm and the area with the smallest surface deviation was the forehead with a RMS of 0.17 ± 0.05 mm. For the comparison of the both scanners our results revealed that the measured difference between the length and the standard reference did not differ statistically significant between the two investigated devices in all investigated areas of the face (p > 0.266), however the measured difference of the width and the width of the standard reference differed statistically significant in all areas of the face across the investigated devices (p < 0.032). Conclusion: The whole – body-imaging device investigated in this study can be utilized to capture the face and provides enough accuracy to compare scans. Even though not directly investigated, it can be hypothesized that the error caused by repositioning the patient between a baseline and a follow – up scan will not be too big to consider measurements performed with the whole – body-imaging device as impractical. Both, measurements obtained from scans acquired using the hand held imaging device and the whole – body-imaging device differed significantly from the standard reference. Users should be aware of deviations when obtaining 3DSI using the presented imaging devices but should not refrain from using them, as the absolute differences might be too small to play a role in both, clinical and research, setting.