Key result
Isosurface measurement yields substantially narrower limits of agreement than curved planar reformation for aortic root dimensions.
Why the study?
Measuring living heart anatomy using 3D images remains challenging, and the newly developed isosurface measurement on volume-rendered images (IMVR) method required validation for quantitative measurement against curved planar reformation (CPR).
Does isosurface measurement on volume-rendered images (IMVR) improve precision and agreement with reference values compared to curved planar reformation (CPR) in measuring complex cardiac anatomical features on 3D-printed human cardiac models?
Does isosurface measurement on volume-rendered images (IMVR) improve precision and agreement with reference values compared to curved planar reformation (CPR) in measuring complex cardiac anatomical features on 3D-printed human cardiac models?
Isosurface measurement on volume-rendered images (IMVR) provides narrower 95% limits of agreement and greater precision than curved planar reformation (CPR) for 3D quantitative measurement of complex aortic root and coronary artery anatomy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
IMVR may aid 3D cardiac measurements in models; leaves open clinical translation without in vivo validation.
Background: Measuring living heart anatomy using three‐dimensional (3D) images remains challenging. To address this, a method called isosurface measurement on volume‐rendered images (IMVR) has been developed. This study aims to validate IMVR in quantitative measurement by comparing it with curved planar reformation (CPR). Methods: Five 3D‐printed human cardiac models created from computed tomography (CT) images were optically scanned, and selected features were measured for reference. The models were CT‐scanned, and the datasets were processed for IMVR and CPR measurements. Overall, 157 anatomical features (105 in the aortic root, 52 in the coronary artery) were measured three times by two observers for each method, and the agreement with the reference values was assessed using the Bland–Altman analysis. Results: In the aortic root measurement, the lower and upper 95% limits of agreement (LOAs, mm) for IMVR were (−3.1, 2.4) and (−1.3, 0.9), whereas those for CPR were (−5.9, 5.2) and (−5.9, 6.3). In the coronary artery measurement, the LOAs for IMVR were (−2.6, 2.2) and (−1.2, 0.8), while those for CPR were (−9.2, 8.6) and (−9.5, 8.5). For both methods, the intraclass coefficient indicated high intra‐ and interobserver reliability. Conclusion: IMVR demonstrated greater precision than CPR and facilitated 3D measurements of complex cardiovascular features.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamiya et al. (2025) studied Complex cardiac anatomical features (aortic root and coronary artery) (n=5). Isosurface measurement on volume-rendered images (IMVR) vs. Curved planar reformation (CPR) was evaluated on 95% limits of agreement (LOAs) with optical scan reference values for aortic root and coronary artery measurements. Isosurface measurement on volume-rendered images showed narrower 95% limits of agreement than curved planar reformation for aortic root and coronary measurements.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: