Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cadaveric dissection is a traditional method used to reveal deep-seated anatomical structures; however, it is inherently time-consuming and irreversible, preventing the correction of procedural errors. To address these limitations, this study presents a novel computer-assisted dissection framework designed to accelerate workflow, allow error mitigation, and enable repeatable analysis of a single specimen. Four independent investigators performed virtual dissections of the inferior medial genicular artery across two DICOM viewing platforms: RadiANT DICOM Viewer 2025.2 (64-bit) and Horos v4.0.0 RC5. Morphometric measurements were recorded at predefined reference points corresponding to arterial branching sites. Inter-observer variability was evaluated, and the resulting dataset was validated against multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) metrics—the standard radiological benchmark for vascular assessment. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between three-dimensional volume rendering (3D VR) and MPR in assessing vessel dimensions for structures with a diameter exceeding \(\:0.950\:mm\) (\(\:{d}MPR=0.950\:mm\)). For vessels > 0.95 mm, 3‑D VR and MPR yielded no statistically significant difference (p = 0.086), a strong Pearson correlation (r = 0.971), and a Bland‑Altman mean bias of − 0.03 mm (95% LoA: − 0.14 to + 0.07 mm). Furthermore, morphological consistency was maintained regardless of vessel caliber. The findings demonstrate that the integration of 3D VR and MPR modalities offers a highly reproducible, non-invasive tool for both educational and research applications in vascular analysis. Moreover, these measurements exhibit strong stability across different software platforms and operators, showing an absence of systematic bias with only minor variations attributable to human error or minor misalignment. Aim of study Establishing the credibility of 3D VR as a tool for anatomical assay creates a possibility of using simpler, more available, efficient and reusable techniques for education, research and clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Szopa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: