Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mesh-based method for measuring intracranial volume in patients with craniosynostosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

   Craniosynostosis may lead to reduced intracranial volume (ICV) and disturb normal brain growth and development. Thus, ICV is an important parameter with respect to the surgical outcome. Current methods for ICV determination from computed tomography (CT) images have drawbacks. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of the novel mesh-based method (MBM) for ICV determination with craniosynostosis patients.

Methods

   Twenty-two patients operated on for scaphocephaly were included in this study. ICVs from preoperative, one-week postoperative, and one-year postoperative CT images were measured with MBM. The level of agreement with the manual segmentation method (MSM) was determined for the measurements of preoperative and one-year postoperative datasets. Repeatability was determined with re-measurements of six datasets. Measurement time was recorded for MBM.

Results

   Mean \((\pm \text{ SD})\) preoperative ICV values were 895.0 \(\pm \) 153.1 \(\text{ cm}^{3}\) and 896.4 \(\pm \) 147.2 \(\text{ cm}^{3}\) as measured with MBM and MSM, respectively. Corresponding one-year postoperative values were 1,238.3 \(\pm \) 118.7 \(\text{ cm}^{3}\) and 1,250.1 \(\pm \) 117.5 \(\text{ cm}^{3}\). The MBM allowed ICV determination from one-week postoperative datasets. Measurement time with MBM was 4

Conclusions

   MBM is an efficient method for determining the ICV of craniosynostosis patients, allowing the measurement of skulls with bony defects. The repeatability and short measurement time of MBM are attributable to the user interference and assessment of the measurement process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Terner JS, Travieso R, Lee S-S, Forte AJ, Patel A, Persing JA (2011) Combined metopic and sagittal craniosynostosis: is it worse than sagittal synostosis alone? Neurosurg Focus 31(2):E2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hill CA, Vaddi S, Moffitt A, Kane AA, Marsh JL, Panchal J, Richtsmeier JT et al (2011) Intracranial volume and whole brain volume in infants with unicoronal craniosynostosis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 48(4):394–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee S-S, Duncan CC, Knoll BI, Persing JA (2010) Intracranial compartment volume changes in sagittal craniosynostosis patients: influence of comprehensive cranioplasty. Plastic Reconstr Surg 126(1):187–196

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nowinski D, Saiepour D, Leikola J, Messo E, Nilsson P, Enblad P (2011) Posterior cranial vault expansion performed with rapid distraction and time-reduced consolidation in infants with syndromic craniosynostosis. Child’s Nerv Syst 27(11):1999–2003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schaller BJ, Filis A, Merten HA, Buchfelder M (2012) Premature craniosynostosis-the role of skull base surgery in its correction. A surgical and radiological experience of 172 operated infants/children. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 40(3):195–200

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Steinbacher DM, Skirpan J, Puchała J, Bartlett SP (2011) Expansion of the posterior cranial vault using distraction osteogenesis. Plastic Reconstr Surg 127(2):792–801

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Taylor JA, Maugans TA (2011) Comparison of spring-mediated cranioplasty to minimally invasive strip craniectomy and barrel staving for early treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg 22(4):1225–1229

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sahin B, Acer N, Sonmez OF, Emirzeoglu M, Basaloglu H, Uzun A, Bilgic S (2007) Comparison of four methods for the estimation of intracranial volume: a gold standard study. Clin Anat 20(7): 766–773

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pengas G, Pereira JMS, Williams GB, Nestor PJ (2009) Comparative reliability of total intracranial volume estimation methods and the influence of atrophy in a longitudinal semantic dementia cohort. J Neuroimaging 19(1):37–46

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sgouros S, Hockley AD, Goldin JH, Wake MJ, Natarajan K (1999) Intracranial volume change in craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg 91(4):617–625

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mazonakis M, Karampekios S, Damilakis J, Voloudaki A, Gourtsoyiannis N (2004) Stereological estimation of total intracranial volume on CT images. Eur Radiol 14(7):1285–1290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Acer N, Sahin B, Baş O, Ertekin T, Usanmaz M (2007) Comparison of three methods for the estimation of total intracranial volume: stereologic, planimetric, and anthropometric approaches. Ann Plast Surg 58(1):48–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mazonakis M, Damilakis J, Maris T, Prassopoulos P, Gourtsoyiannis N (2002) Comparison of two volumetric techniques for estimating volume of intracerebral ventricles using magnetic resonance imaging: a stereological study. J Magn Reson Imaging 15(5): 131–139

    Google Scholar 

  14. de Oliveira ME, Ritvanen A, Hallila H et al A mesh-based method for assessing intracranial volume. Comput Methods Prog Biol (submitted)

  15. Salyer K, Marchac D (1999) Chapter 2: Surgery of craniosynostosis in infants. In: Salyer KE, Bardach J (eds) Atlas of craniofacial and cleft surgery, vol 1. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 86–88

    Google Scholar 

  16. Arnaud E, Marchac D, Renier D (2006) The treatment of craniosynostosis: indications and techniques. Neurochirurgie 52:264–291 (in French)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Arnaud E, Capon-Degardin N, Michienzi J, Di Rocco F, Renier D (2009) Scaphocephaly part II: secondary coronal synostosis after scaphocephalic surgical correction. J Craniofac Surg 20(Suppl 2):1843–1850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Altman DG, Bland JM (1983) Measurement in medicine. Anal Method Comp Stud 32:307–317

    Google Scholar 

  20. de Oliveira ME, Hallila H, Ritvanen A, Büchler P, Paulasto M, Hukki J (2011) Feature-invariant image registration method for quantification of surgical outcomes in patients with craniosynostosis: a preliminary study. J Pediatr Surg 46(10):E1–E8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ambarki K, Lindqvist T, Wåhlin A, Petterson E, Warntjes JBM, Birgander R, Malm J et al (2012) Evaluation of automatic measurement of the intracranial volume based on quantitative MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 33(10):1951–1956

    Google Scholar 

  22. Heller JB, Heller MM, Knoll B, Gabbay JS, Duncan C, Persing JA (2008) Intracranial volume and cephalic index outcomes for total calvarial reconstruction among nonsyndromic sagittal synostosis patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 121(1):187–195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by Tekes—The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovations, Aalto University and the Orton Foundation.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electronics, School of Electrical Engineering, Aalto University, Otakaari 7B, 02150 , Espoo, Finland

    Antti G. Ritvanen, Harri O. Hallila, Juha K. Haaja & Mervi M. Paulasto-Kröckel

  2. Institute for Surgical Technology and Biomechanics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Marcelo Elias de Oliveira

  3. Department of Radiology, Helsinki Medical Imaging Center, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    Mika P. Koivikko

  4. Department of Plastic Surgery, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    Virve S. Koljonen

  5. Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Virve S. Koljonen

  6. Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Center, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    Junnu P. Leikola & Jyri J. Hukki

  7. ORTON Research Institute, ORTON Orthopaedic Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    Antti G. Ritvanen, Harri O. Hallila & Juha K. Haaja

Authors
  1. Antti G. Ritvanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelo Elias de Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mika P. Koivikko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Harri O. Hallila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Juha K. Haaja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Virve S. Koljonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Junnu P. Leikola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jyri J. Hukki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mervi M. Paulasto-Kröckel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antti G. Ritvanen.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

11548_2013_822_MOESM1_ESM.wmv

Video, Supplemental digital content 1 The video presents a screen view of the measuring process of two patients with the MBM software. The value of ICV is shown in green figures in the bottom left of the screen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ritvanen, A.G., de Oliveira, M.E., Koivikko, M.P. et al. Mesh-based method for measuring intracranial volume in patients with craniosynostosis. Int J CARS 8, 703–709 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-013-0822-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-013-0822-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation