Software-Automated Implant Detection for Intraoperative 3D Imaging—First Clinical Evaluation on 214 Data Sets.

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 malp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Digital Imaging Vol. 35; no. 3; pp. 514 - 524
Autores principales: Beisemann, Nils, Mandelka, Eric, El Barbari, Jan S., Kreher, Björn, Vetter, Sven Y., Grützner, Paul Alfred, Franke, Jochen
Formato: diagnostic images equations & formulas research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Jun2022
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=157184680&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 157184680
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        08971889
        DOQ
      jtl: Journal of Digital Imaging
      issn: 08971889
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2022
      vid: 35
      iid: 3
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        157184680
        155168388
        157184680
        157184680
        10.1007/s10278-022-00588-w
        157184680
      ppf: 514
      ppct: 10
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Software-Automated Implant Detection for Intraoperative 3D Imaging—First Clinical Evaluation on 214 Data Sets.
      aug:
        au:
          Beisemann, Nils
          Mandelka, Eric
          El Barbari, Jan S.
          Kreher, Björn
          Vetter, Sven Y.
          Grützner, Paul Alfred
          Franke, Jochen
        affil: Medical Imaging and Navigation in Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery (MINTOS), BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, Ludwig-Guttmann-Str. 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany
      sug:
        subj:
          Software Utilization
          Digital Imaging Utilization
          Intraoperative Monitoring
          Imaging, Three-Dimensional Evaluation
          Human
          False Positive Results
          False Negative Results
          Fractures Surgery
          Descriptive Statistics
          Workflow
          Intraoperative Period
      ab: 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.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        diagnostic images
        equations & formulas
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N