Abstract
Purpose Our aim is to conduct analysis and comparison of some methods commonly used to measure the volume of hematoma, for example, slice method, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer software method (projection method). Method In order to validate the accuracy of the slice method, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer method, these three methods were first applied to measure two known volumetric models, respectively. Then, a total of 198 patients diagnosed with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) were recruited. The patients were split into 3 different groups based on the hematoma size: group 1: volume < 10 ml (n = 89), group 2: volume between 10 and 20 ml (n = 59), and group 3: volume > 20 ml (n = 50). And the shape of the hematoma was classed into regular (round to ellipsoid) with smooth margins (n = 76), irregular with frayed margins (n = 85), and multilobular (n = 37). The slice method, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer method were adopted to measure the volume of hematoma, respectively, considering the nonclosed models and the models which may contain inaccurate normal information during CT scan. Moreover, the results were compared with the 3D-Slicer method for closed models. Results There was a significant estimation error (P < 0.05) using these three methods to calculate the volume of the closed hematoma model. The estimated hematoma volume was calculated to be 14.2086743 ± 0.900559087 ml, 14.2119130 ± 0.900851812 ml, and 14.2123825 ± 0.900835916 ml using slice method 1, slice method 2, and the voxelization method, respectively, compared to 14.212656 ± 0.900992371 ml using the 3D-Slicer method. The mean estimation error was -0.00398172 ml, -0.00074303 ml, and -0.00027354 ml caused by slice method 1, slice method 2, and voxelization method, respectively. There was a significant estimation error (P < 0.05), applying these three methods to calculate the volume of the nonclosed hematoma model. The estimated hematoma volume was calculated to be 14.1928246 ± 0.902210314 ml using the 3D-Slicer method. The mean estimation error was calculated to be -0.00402121 ml, -0.00078237 ml, -0.00031288 ml, and -0.01983136 ml using slice method 1, slice method 2, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer method, respectively. Conclusions The 3D-Slicer software method is considered as a stable and capable method of high precision for the calculation of a closed hematoma model with correct normal direction, while it would be inappropriate for the nonclosed model nor the model with incorrect normal direction. The slice method and voxelization method can be the supplement and improvement of the 3D-Slicer software method, for the purpose of achieving precision medicine.
Highlights
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has been identified as a significant cause of death and disability around the world [1]
The accurate measurement of hematoma volume is of clinical significance as hematoma volume has been commonly used to correlate with treatment strategy, functional outcome, and mortality
Hematoma volume plays a crucial role in the prognosis of patients
Summary
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has been identified as a significant cause of death and disability around the world [1]. The increasing incidence of cerebral hemorrhage can cause progression of the disease. The amount of cerebral hemorrhage, or the cerebral hematoma volume, can be taken as a major indicator of early mortality at the time of admission. It is among the most effective indicators of the degree of neurological recovery within 90 days of the onset of the disease [2,3,4,5,6]. The diversity of hematoma shapes is one of the primary causes of errors in applying volume assessment methods. In order to facilitate the accurate diagnosis and treatment of disease, choosing an accurate, simple, and noninvasive approach to the measurement of intracranial hematoma volume is definitely conducive to the selection of treatment options, evaluation of clinical outcomes, and prediction of disease progression
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.