Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Software-Automated Implant Detection for Intraoperative 3D Imaging-First Clinical Evaluation on 214 Data Sets.
Beisemann, Nils; Mandelka, Eric; El Barbari, Jan S; Kreher, Björn; Vetter, Sven Y; Grützner, Paul Alfred; Franke, Jochen.
Afiliação
  • Beisemann N; Medical Imaging and Navigation in Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery (MINTOS), BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
  • Mandelka E; Medical Imaging and Navigation in Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery (MINTOS), BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
  • El Barbari JS; Medical Imaging and Navigation in Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery (MINTOS), BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
  • Kreher B; Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany.
  • Vetter SY; Medical Imaging and Navigation in Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery (MINTOS), BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
  • Grützner PA; Medical Imaging and Navigation in Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery (MINTOS), BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
  • Franke J; Medical Imaging and Navigation in Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery (MINTOS), BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany. jochen.franke@bgu-ludwigshafen.de.
J Digit Imaging ; 35(3): 514-523, 2022 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35146612
ABSTRACT
Previous studies have demonstrated a frequent occurrence of screw/K-wire malpositioning during surgical fracture treatment under 2D fluoroscopy and a correspondingly high revision rate as a result of using intraoperative 3D imaging. In order to facilitate and accelerate the diagnosis of implant malpositioning in 3D data sets, this study investigates two versions of an implant detection software for mobile 3D C-arms in terms of their detection performance based on comparison with manual evaluation. The 3D data sets of patients who had received surgical fracture treatment at five anatomical regions were extracted from the research database. First, manual evaluation of the data sets was performed, and the number of implanted implants was assessed. For 25 data sets, the time required by four investigators to adjust each implant was monitored. Subsequently, the evaluation was performed using both software versions based on the following detection parameters true-positive-rate, false-negative-rate, false-detection-rate and positive predictive value. Furthermore, the causes of false positive and false negative detected implants depending on the anatomical region were investigated. Two hundred fourteen data sets with overall 1767 implants were included. The detection parameters were significantly improved (p<.001) from version 1 to version 2 of the implant detection software. Automatic evaluation required an average of 4.1±0.4 s while manual evaluation was completed in 136.15±72.9 s (p<.001), with a statistically significant difference between experienced and inexperienced users (p=.005). In summary, version 2 of the implant detection software achieved significantly better results. The time saved by using the software could contribute to optimizing the intraoperative workflow.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Software / Imageamento Tridimensional Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Software / Imageamento Tridimensional Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article