RESUMEN
Objective@#To investigate the feasibility of an accuracy evaluation method for 3D reconstructed bone model based on 3D reconstruction software Arigin3D Pro.@*Methods@#Pig femurs were used as solid models which were scanned by CT and MRI respectively. The scan data were imported into software Arigin3D Pro for 3D model reconstruction by 3 operators with different reconstruction experience (≤1 year, 2 to 3 years, and ≥4 years, respectively). Each operator reconstructed the femurs 3 times and in each reconstruction measured the diameter of the femoral head, the length of the femur and the width of the knee joint at the distal end of the femur 3 times respectively using software Geomagic Wrap. The above parameters of the solid models were measured using a vernier caliper. The parameter values of reconstructed models and solid models were compared and the differences were analyzed.@*Results@#The measurements by Geomagic Wrap showed deviations between the CT and MRI reconstruction models and the solid models, and the maximum deviation percentages were 1.47% and 1.08%, respectively. The percentages of intra-operater difference ranged from 0.29% to 1.53%; the 3D models reconstructed by operators with different reconstruction experience were not identical.@*Conclusions@#It is a feasible accuracy evaluation method to compare key parameters between the 3D bone model reconstructed by software Arigin3D Pro and the real animal bone. The deviations of 3D reconstructed bone model based on CT and MRI images are acceptable. The accuracy of 3D bone construction is related to the difference in operators.
RESUMEN
Objective To investigate the feasibility of an accuracy evaluation method for 3D reconstructed bone model based on 3D reconstruction software Arigin3D Pro.Methods Pig femurs were used as solid models which were scanned by CT and MRI respectively.The scan data were imported into software Arigin3D Pro for 3D model reconstruction by 3 operators with different reconstruction experience (≤1 year,2 to 3 years,and ≥4 years,respectively).Each operator reconstructed the femurs 3 times and in each reconstruction measured the diameter of the femoral head,the length of the femur and the width of the knee joint at the distal end of the femur 3 times respectively using software Geomagic Wrap.The above parameters of the solid models were measured using a vernier caliper.The parameter values of reconstructed models and solid models were compared and the differences were analyzed.Results The measurements by Geomagic Wrap showed deviations between the CT and MRI reconstruction models and the solid models,and the maximum deviation percentages were 1.47％ and 1.08％,respectively.The percentages of intra-operater difference ranged from 0.29％ to 1.53％;the 3D models reconstructed by operators with different reconstruction experience were not identical.Conclusions It is a feasible accuracy evaluation method to compare key parameters between the 3D bone model reconstructed by software Arigin3D Pro and the real animal bone.The deviations of 3D reconstructed bone model based on CT and MR1 images are acceptable.The accuracy of 3D bone construction is related to the difference in operators.
RESUMEN
Objective To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a curved vertebroplasty (CVP) compared with traditional unipedicular approach vertebroplasty (UVP) in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF).Methods This was a retrospective case control study on the clinical data of 77 OVCF patients (12 males,65 females;aged 55-86 years,mean 70.8 years) admitted between July 2013 and December 2016.There were 6 injured vertebrae at T1 10,73 at T11 L2,and 12 at L3 5.The patients were divided into CVP group (36 patients,44 vertebrae) and UVP group (41 patients,47 vertebrae) with no significant difference in baseline clinical variables.Intraoperative and postoperative complications including neurovascular injury were recorded.Operation duration,fluoroscopy frequency,volume of cement per level,cement leakage rate per level treated,cement distribution,and refracture rate were compared between the two groups.Preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were compared both within the group and between the groups.Results No severe complications related to puncture were observed.No significant difference was observed for operation duration,fluoroscopy frequency,and cement leakage rate per level treated between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05).Compared with UVP group,CVP group had larger volume of cement per level [(5.0 ± 1.4) ml vs.(4.3 ± 1.6) ml],more uniform cement distribution (none vs.10 cases),and lower refracture rate (0 vs.10％) (P ＜ 0.05).The two groups were followed up for 6-49 months (mean,25.9 months).Significant improvements on the VAS and ODI were noted within each group (P ＜0.01),but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusions Both CVP and UVP are safe and effective treatments for OVCF.Compared with UVP,CVP entails more uniform cement distribution and lower refracture rate.