旋转拼接、单镜头和缝位扫描全长x线摄影测量误差的评估。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Zhengliang Li, Jie Xia, Cong Wang, Zhemin Zhu, Fan Zhang, Tsung-Yuan Tsai, Zhenhong Zhu, Kai Yang
{"title":"旋转拼接、单镜头和缝位扫描全长x线摄影测量误差的评估。","authors":"Zhengliang Li, Jie Xia, Cong Wang, Zhemin Zhu, Fan Zhang, Tsung-Yuan Tsai, Zhenhong Zhu, Kai Yang","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering12090999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Full-length radiography is essential for evaluating spinal deformities, limb length discrepancies, and preoperative planning in orthopedics, yet the measurement accuracy of different radiographic methods remains unclear. This phantom study compared the accuracy of rotational stitching, one-shot and slot-scanning full-length radiography across six radiographic systems in quantifying distances between anatomical landmarks. Measurement errors were statistically analyzed using appropriate nonparametric tests. The results demonstrated significant differences in measurement accuracy among the three methods (H (2) = 15.86, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Slot-scanning exhibited the highest accuracy, with a mean error of -1.19 ± 10.13 mm, while both rotational stitching and one-shot imaging showed greater systematic underestimation, with mean errors of -18.95 ± 13.77 mm and -15.32 ± 12.38 mm, respectively. These negative biases (approximately 1.9 cm and 1.5 cm) are clinically meaningful because, if unrecognized, they can alter mechanical axis estimation and alignment planning in procedures such as high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Post hoc analysis confirmed the superior accuracy of slot-scanning compared to the other two methods, while no significant difference was found between rotational stitching and one-shot imaging. These findings indicate that system choice substantially impacts measurement accuracy, supporting preferential use of slot-scanning when precise quantitative assessment is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"12 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12467733/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Measurement Errors in Rotational Stitching, One-Shot, and Slot-Scanning Full-Length Radiography.\",\"authors\":\"Zhengliang Li, Jie Xia, Cong Wang, Zhemin Zhu, Fan Zhang, Tsung-Yuan Tsai, Zhenhong Zhu, Kai Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/bioengineering12090999\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Full-length radiography is essential for evaluating spinal deformities, limb length discrepancies, and preoperative planning in orthopedics, yet the measurement accuracy of different radiographic methods remains unclear. This phantom study compared the accuracy of rotational stitching, one-shot and slot-scanning full-length radiography across six radiographic systems in quantifying distances between anatomical landmarks. Measurement errors were statistically analyzed using appropriate nonparametric tests. The results demonstrated significant differences in measurement accuracy among the three methods (H (2) = 15.86, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Slot-scanning exhibited the highest accuracy, with a mean error of -1.19 ± 10.13 mm, while both rotational stitching and one-shot imaging showed greater systematic underestimation, with mean errors of -18.95 ± 13.77 mm and -15.32 ± 12.38 mm, respectively. These negative biases (approximately 1.9 cm and 1.5 cm) are clinically meaningful because, if unrecognized, they can alter mechanical axis estimation and alignment planning in procedures such as high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Post hoc analysis confirmed the superior accuracy of slot-scanning compared to the other two methods, while no significant difference was found between rotational stitching and one-shot imaging. These findings indicate that system choice substantially impacts measurement accuracy, supporting preferential use of slot-scanning when precise quantitative assessment is required.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioengineering\",\"volume\":\"12 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12467733/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioengineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090999\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090999","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全身x线摄影对于评估脊柱畸形、肢体长度差异和骨科术前计划至关重要,但不同x线摄影方法的测量精度尚不清楚。本研究比较了旋转拼接、一次拍摄和缝位扫描全身x线摄影在六种x线摄影系统中量化解剖标志之间距离的准确性。采用适当的非参数检验对测量误差进行统计分析。结果表明,三种方法的测量精度差异有统计学意义(H (2) = 15.86, p < 0.001)。缝位扫描的准确度最高,平均误差为-1.19±10.13 mm,而旋转拼接和一次性成像的系统低估程度更高,平均误差分别为-18.95±13.77 mm和-15.32±12.38 mm。这些负偏(约1.9 cm和1.5 cm)在临床上是有意义的,因为如果不被发现,它们可以改变机械轴的估计和在高位胫骨截骨(HTO)手术中的对齐计划。事后分析证实,与其他两种方法相比,缝状扫描的准确性更高,而旋转缝合和一次成像之间没有显着差异。这些发现表明,系统选择对测量精度有很大影响,当需要精确的定量评估时,支持优先使用槽扫描。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of Measurement Errors in Rotational Stitching, One-Shot, and Slot-Scanning Full-Length Radiography.

Full-length radiography is essential for evaluating spinal deformities, limb length discrepancies, and preoperative planning in orthopedics, yet the measurement accuracy of different radiographic methods remains unclear. This phantom study compared the accuracy of rotational stitching, one-shot and slot-scanning full-length radiography across six radiographic systems in quantifying distances between anatomical landmarks. Measurement errors were statistically analyzed using appropriate nonparametric tests. The results demonstrated significant differences in measurement accuracy among the three methods (H (2) = 15.86, p < 0.001). Slot-scanning exhibited the highest accuracy, with a mean error of -1.19 ± 10.13 mm, while both rotational stitching and one-shot imaging showed greater systematic underestimation, with mean errors of -18.95 ± 13.77 mm and -15.32 ± 12.38 mm, respectively. These negative biases (approximately 1.9 cm and 1.5 cm) are clinically meaningful because, if unrecognized, they can alter mechanical axis estimation and alignment planning in procedures such as high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Post hoc analysis confirmed the superior accuracy of slot-scanning compared to the other two methods, while no significant difference was found between rotational stitching and one-shot imaging. These findings indicate that system choice substantially impacts measurement accuracy, supporting preferential use of slot-scanning when precise quantitative assessment is required.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bioengineering
Bioengineering Chemical Engineering-Bioengineering
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.70%
发文量
661
期刊介绍: Aims Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal: ● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings. ● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed. ● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material. ● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds. Scope ● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces ● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices ● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc. ● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology ● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering ● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation ● Translational bioengineering
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信