Automating Perforator Flap MRA and CTA Reporting.
Surgical breast reconstruction after mastectomy requires precise perforator coordinates/dimensions, perforator course, and fat volume in a radiology report. Automatic perforator reporting software was implemented as an OsiriX Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) viewer plugin. For...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Digital Imaging Vol. 30; no. 3; pp. 350 - 358 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Formato: | equations & formulas pictorial Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Jun2017
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=122919416&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 122919416 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 08971889 DOQ jtl: Journal of Digital Imaging issn: 08971889 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jun2017 vid: 30 iid: 3 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature place: New York, New York artinfo: ui: 122919416 122919416 144047611 122919416 10.1007/s10278-017-9943-z 122919416 ppf: 350 ppct: 8 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Automating Perforator Flap MRA and CTA Reporting. aug: au: Lange, Christopher Zabih, Ramin Prince, Martin Thimmappa, Nanda Boddu, Srikanth Dutruel, Silvina Pei, Mengchao Farooq, Zerwa Heshmatzadeh Behzadi, Ashkan Wang, Yi affil: Department of Radiology , Weill Medical College of Cornell University , New York USA sug: subj: Perforator Flap Computed Tomography Angiography Magnetic Resonance Angiography Reports Automation Software Paired T-Tests Descriptive Statistics Time ab: Surgical breast reconstruction after mastectomy requires precise perforator coordinates/dimensions, perforator course, and fat volume in a radiology report. Automatic perforator reporting software was implemented as an OsiriX Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) viewer plugin. For perforator analysis, the user identifies a reference point (e.g., umbilicus) and marks each perforating artery/vein bundle with multiple region of interest (ROI) points along its course beginning at the muscle-fat interface. Computations using these points and analysis of image data produce content for the report. Post-processing times were compared against conventional/manual methods using de-identified images of 26 patients with surgically confirmed accuracy of perforator locations and caliber. The time from loading source images to completion of report was measured. Significance of differences in mean processing times for this automated approach versus the conventional/manual approach was assessed using a paired t test. The mean conventional reporting time for our radiologists was 76 ± 27 min (median 65 min) compared with 25 ± 6 min (median 25 min) using our OsiriX plugin ( p < 0.01). The conventional approach had three reports with transcription errors compared to none with the OsiriX plugin. Otherwise, the reports were similar. In conclusion, automated reporting of perforator magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) studies is faster compared with the standard, manual approach, and transcription errors which are eliminated. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: equations & formulas pictorial Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|