Author/Authors :
Chen, Minhong Zhejiang Sci-Tech University - Hangzhou - Zhejiang, China , Li, Zhong Zhejiang Sci-Tech University - Hangzhou - Zhejiang, China , Ding, Jianping Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University - Hangzhou - Zhejiang, China , Lu, Xingqi Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University - Hangzhou - Zhejiang, China , Cheng, Yinan Southern University of Science and Technology - Shenzhen - Guangdong, China , Lin, Jiayun Zhejiang Sci-Tech University - Hangzhou - Zhejiang, China
Abstract :
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.
