Abstract
Objective - To assess the clinical feasibility and the accuracy of two pragmatic methods in comparison with a conventional computer based method of measurement of masses from CT. Methods - Nineteen CT scans of 11 patients with severe head injury, showing 34 traumatic lesions, were examined. The volume of every lesion was digitally measured, then a panel of three examiners independently repeated the measurement using the ellipsoid and the Cavalieri method in random order. Results - All the lesions were identified by all the readers and the mean volume measured by each examiner differed by less than 1.5 ml. The average reading time for each scan was 4 minutes for the ellipsoid and 7 minutes for the Cavalieri method. The average volume of the lesions was 34.2 (SD 35) ml with the digital system, and 38.4 (SD 41) ml and 34.8 (SD 36) ml for the ellipsoid and the Cavalieri readings respectively. The average difference between the applied technique and the digital system was 0.57 (SD 9.99) ml for the Cavalieri direct estimator and 0.20 (SD 15.48) ml for the ellipsoid method. The 95% confidence interval for this difference fell between -2.75 and 3.89 ml for the Cavalieri, and between -4.94 and 5.35 ml for the ellipsoid method. There were 19 lesions > 25 ml; the ellipsoid method identified 16 of them, whereas 17 were classified with the Cavalieri method. When considering individual lesions rather than the average volume, discrepancies were detected with both methods. The ellipsoid method was less precise, especially when extracerebral lesions were measured. Conclusions - Both pragmatic methods are inferior to computer based reading, which is the choice when accurate volume estimation is necessary. However, if a digital volumetric determination of the lesions using a CT computer is not possible, the two pragmatic methods offer an alternative.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 14-17 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry |
| Volume | 68 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 2000 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Computed tomography
- Head injury
- Mass lesions
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
- Neuroscience(all)
- Psychiatry and Mental health
Cite this
Mass volume measurement in severe head injury : Accuracy and feasibility of two pragmatic methods. / Stocchetti, Nino; Croci, Marco; Spagnoli, Diego; Gilardoni, Felicetta; Resta, Federico; Colombo, Angelo.
In: Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, Vol. 68, No. 1, 01.2000, p. 14-17.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Mass volume measurement in severe head injury
T2 - Accuracy and feasibility of two pragmatic methods
AU - Stocchetti, Nino
AU - Croci, Marco
AU - Spagnoli, Diego
AU - Gilardoni, Felicetta
AU - Resta, Federico
AU - Colombo, Angelo
PY - 2000/1
Y1 - 2000/1
N2 - Objective - To assess the clinical feasibility and the accuracy of two pragmatic methods in comparison with a conventional computer based method of measurement of masses from CT. Methods - Nineteen CT scans of 11 patients with severe head injury, showing 34 traumatic lesions, were examined. The volume of every lesion was digitally measured, then a panel of three examiners independently repeated the measurement using the ellipsoid and the Cavalieri method in random order. Results - All the lesions were identified by all the readers and the mean volume measured by each examiner differed by less than 1.5 ml. The average reading time for each scan was 4 minutes for the ellipsoid and 7 minutes for the Cavalieri method. The average volume of the lesions was 34.2 (SD 35) ml with the digital system, and 38.4 (SD 41) ml and 34.8 (SD 36) ml for the ellipsoid and the Cavalieri readings respectively. The average difference between the applied technique and the digital system was 0.57 (SD 9.99) ml for the Cavalieri direct estimator and 0.20 (SD 15.48) ml for the ellipsoid method. The 95% confidence interval for this difference fell between -2.75 and 3.89 ml for the Cavalieri, and between -4.94 and 5.35 ml for the ellipsoid method. There were 19 lesions > 25 ml; the ellipsoid method identified 16 of them, whereas 17 were classified with the Cavalieri method. When considering individual lesions rather than the average volume, discrepancies were detected with both methods. The ellipsoid method was less precise, especially when extracerebral lesions were measured. Conclusions - Both pragmatic methods are inferior to computer based reading, which is the choice when accurate volume estimation is necessary. However, if a digital volumetric determination of the lesions using a CT computer is not possible, the two pragmatic methods offer an alternative.
AB - Objective - To assess the clinical feasibility and the accuracy of two pragmatic methods in comparison with a conventional computer based method of measurement of masses from CT. Methods - Nineteen CT scans of 11 patients with severe head injury, showing 34 traumatic lesions, were examined. The volume of every lesion was digitally measured, then a panel of three examiners independently repeated the measurement using the ellipsoid and the Cavalieri method in random order. Results - All the lesions were identified by all the readers and the mean volume measured by each examiner differed by less than 1.5 ml. The average reading time for each scan was 4 minutes for the ellipsoid and 7 minutes for the Cavalieri method. The average volume of the lesions was 34.2 (SD 35) ml with the digital system, and 38.4 (SD 41) ml and 34.8 (SD 36) ml for the ellipsoid and the Cavalieri readings respectively. The average difference between the applied technique and the digital system was 0.57 (SD 9.99) ml for the Cavalieri direct estimator and 0.20 (SD 15.48) ml for the ellipsoid method. The 95% confidence interval for this difference fell between -2.75 and 3.89 ml for the Cavalieri, and between -4.94 and 5.35 ml for the ellipsoid method. There were 19 lesions > 25 ml; the ellipsoid method identified 16 of them, whereas 17 were classified with the Cavalieri method. When considering individual lesions rather than the average volume, discrepancies were detected with both methods. The ellipsoid method was less precise, especially when extracerebral lesions were measured. Conclusions - Both pragmatic methods are inferior to computer based reading, which is the choice when accurate volume estimation is necessary. However, if a digital volumetric determination of the lesions using a CT computer is not possible, the two pragmatic methods offer an alternative.
KW - Computed tomography
KW - Head injury
KW - Mass lesions
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034064813&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034064813&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/jnnp.68.1.14
DO - 10.1136/jnnp.68.1.14
M3 - Article
C2 - 10601394
AN - SCOPUS:0034064813
VL - 68
SP - 14
EP - 17
JO - Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry
JF - Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry
SN - 0022-3050
IS - 1
ER -