Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 163–172 | Cite as

Evaluation of Precision and Accuracy Assessment of Different 3-D Surface Imaging Systems for Biomedical Purposes

  • Maximilian Eder
  • Gernot Brockmann
  • Alexander Zimmermann
  • Moschos A. Papadopoulos
  • Katja Schwenzer-Zimmerer
  • Hans Florian Zeilhofer
  • Robert Sader
  • Nikolaos A. Papadopulos
  • Laszlo Kovacs
Article

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3-D) surface imaging has gained clinical acceptance, especially in the field of cranio-maxillo-facial and plastic, reconstructive, and aesthetic surgery. Six scanners based on different scanning principles (Minolta Vivid 910®, Polhemus FastSCAN™, GFM PRIMOS®, GFM TopoCAM®, Steinbichler Comet® Vario Zoom 250, 3dMD DSP 400®) were used to measure five sheep skulls of different sizes. In three areas with varying anatomical complexity (areas, 1 = high; 2 = moderate; 3 = low), 56 distances between 20 landmarks are defined on each skull. Manual measurement (MM), coordinate machine measurements (CMM) and computer tomography (CT) measurements were used to define a reference method for further precision and accuracy evaluation of different 3-D scanning systems. MM showed high correlation to CMM and CT measurements (both r = 0.987; p < 0.001) and served as the reference method. TopoCAM®, Comet® and Vivid 910® showed highest measurement precision over all areas of complexity; Vivid 910®, the Comet® and the DSP 400® demonstrated highest accuracy over all areas with Vivid 910® being most accurate in areas 1 and 3, and the DSP 400® most accurate in area 2. In accordance to the measured distance length, most 3-D devices present higher measurement precision and accuracy for large distances and lower degrees of precision and accuracy for short distances. In general, higher degrees of complexity are associated with lower 3-D assessment accuracy, suggesting that for optimal results, different types of scanners should be applied to specific clinical applications and medical problems according to their special construction designs and characteristics.

Keywords

Accuracy Biomedical Fringe projection Laser scanning Precision Stereo-photogrammetry Surface imaging 3D 

References

  1. 1.
    Galdino GM, Nahabedian M, Chiaramonte M, Geng JZ, Klatsky S, Manson P: Clinical applications of three-dimensional photography in breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:58–70, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tepper OM, Small K, Rudolph L, Choi M, Karp N: Virtual 3-dimensional modeling as a valuable adjunct to aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Am J Surg 192:548–551, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R, Zimmermann A, Settles M, Schneider A, Endlich M, Mueller A, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Papadopulos NA, Biemer E: New aspects of breast volume measurement using 3-dimensional surface imaging. Ann Plast Surg 57:602–610, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kovacs L, Zimmermann A, Wawrzyn H, Schwenzer K, Seitz H, Tille C, Papadopulos NA, Sader R, Zeilhofer HF, Biemer E: Computer aided surgical reconstruction after complex facial burn injuries—opportunities and limitations. Burns 31:85–91, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O'Grady KF, Antonyshyn OM: Facial asymmetry: three-dimensional analysis using laser surface scanning. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:928–937, 1999PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kau CH, Cronin A, Durning P, Zhurov AI, Sandham A, Richmond S: A new method for the 3D measurement of postoperative swelling following orthognathic surgery. Orthod Craniofac Res 9:31–37, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Chaitidis D, Boerner I, Kovacs L, Schwenzer NF, Holberg C, Zeilhofer HF: Systematic contact-free 3D topometry of the soft tissue profile in cleft lips. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 45:607–613, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thali MJ, Braun M, Dirnhofer R: Optical 3D surface digitizing in forensic medicine: 3D documentation of skin and bone injuries. Forensic Sci Int 137:203–208, 2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Breuckmann B: Bildverarbeitung und optische Messtechnik in der industriellen Praxis. Franzis-Verlag GmbH, München, Germany, 1993Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aguilar JJ, Torres F, Lope MA: Stereo vision for 3D measurement: accuracy analysis, calibration and industrial applications. Measurement 18:193–200, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Istook C, Hwang S: 3D body scanning systems with application to the apparel industry. J Fash Mark Manag 5:120–132, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aung SC, Ngim RC, Lee ST: Evaluation of the laser scanner as a surface measuring tool and its accuracy compared with direct facial anthropometric measurements. Br J Plast Surg 48:551–558, 1995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kovacs L, Zimmermann A, Brockmann G, Baurecht H, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Papadopulos NA, Papadopoulos MA, Sader R, Biemer E, Zeilhofer HF: Accuracy and precision of the three-dimensional assessment of the facial surface using a 3-D laser scanner. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 25:742–754, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kovacs L, Zimmermann A, Brockmann G, Gühring M, Baurecht H, Papadopulos NA, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Sader R, Biemer E, Zeilhofer HF: Three-dimensional recording of the human face with a 3D laser scanner. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 59:1193–1202, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kovacs L, Yassouridis A, Zimmermann A, Brockmann G, Wöhnl A, Blaschke M, Eder M, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Rosenberg R, Papadopulos NA, Biemer E: Optimization of 3-dimensional imaging of the breast region with 3-dimensional laser scanners. Ann Plast Surg 56:229–236, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ma L, Xu T, Lin J: Validation of a three-dimensional facial scanning system based on structured light techniques. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 94:290–298, 2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Haberstok J, Kovacs L, Boerner BI, Schwenzer N, Juergens P, Zeihofer HF, Holberg C: 3D surface measurement for medical application—technical comparison of two established industrial surface scanning systems. J Med Syst 32:59–64, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brockmann G, Zimmermann A, Papadopulos NA, Papadopoulos MA, Kovacs L: Evaluation of applicability and accuracy of different surface scanning systems in medicine. J Biomech 39:S570, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bradley BD, Chan ADC, Hayes MJD: A 3D scanning system for biomedical purposes. Int J Adv Media Comm 3:35–44, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Papadopoulos MA, Jannowitz C, Boettcher P, Henke J, Stolla R, Zeilhofer HF, Kovacs L, Erhardt W, Biemer E, Papadopulos NA: Three-dimensional fetal cephalometry: an evaluation of the reliability of cephalometric measurements based on three-dimensional CT reconstructions and on dry skulls of sheep fetuses. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 33:229–237, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kohn LA, Cheverud JM, Bhatia G, Commean P, Smith K, Vannier MW: Anthropometric optical surface imaging system repeatability, precision, and validation. Ann Plast Surg 34:362–371, 1995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bush K, Antonyshyn O: Three-dimensional facial anthropometry using a laser surface scanner: validation of the technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 98:226–235, 1996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eder M, Waldenfels FV, Sichtermann M, Schuster T, Papadopulos NA, Machens HG, Biemer E, Kovacs L: Three-dimensional evaluation of breast contour and volume changes following subpectoral augmentation mammoplasty over 6 months. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 64:1152–1160, 2011PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoehnke C, Eder M, Papadopulos NA, Zimmermann A, Brockmann G, Biemer E, Kovacs L: Minimal invasive reconstruction of posttraumatic hemi facial atrophy by 3-D computer-assisted lipofilling. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 60:1138–1144, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R, Zimmermann A, Settles M, Schneider A, Endlich M, Mueller A, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Papadopulos NA, Biemer E: Comparison between breast volume measurement using 3D surface imaging and classical techniques. Breast 16:137–145, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Giunta RE, Eder M, Machens HG, Müller DF, Kovacs L: Structural fat grafting for rejuvenation of the dorsum of the hand. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 42:143–147, 2010PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patete P, Riboldi M, Spadea MF, Catanuto G, Spano A, Nava M, Baroni G: Motion compensation in hand-held laser scanning for surface modeling in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Ann Biomed Eng 37:1877–1885, 2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bettio F, Frexia F, Giachetti A, Gobbetti E, Pintore G, Zanetti G, Balogh T, Forgács T, Agocs T, Bouvier E: A holographic collaborative medical visualization system. Stud Health Technol Inform 119:52–54, 2006PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian Eder
    • 1
  • Gernot Brockmann
    • 1
  • Alexander Zimmermann
    • 2
  • Moschos A. Papadopoulos
    • 3
  • Katja Schwenzer-Zimmerer
    • 4
  • Hans Florian Zeilhofer
    • 4
  • Robert Sader
    • 5
  • Nikolaos A. Papadopulos
    • 1
  • Laszlo Kovacs
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand SurgeryKlinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Vascular SurgeryKlinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Orthodontics, School of DentistryAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  4. 4.Division of Cranio-maxillo-facial Surgery, Department of Reconstructive SurgeryUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of Oral, Maxillofacial, and Plastic Facial SurgeryGoethe Universität FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations