Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
and ICC); and usability in clinical practice with the following parameters: portability, suitability of use in operating theatre/clinic, ease of use of hardware and software, speed of capture, image quality, patient comfort, and cost. All tested devices presented overall good accuracy in detecting small volumetric changes ranging from 0.5 to 4 cc. Structured-light laser scanners (Artec Eva and Go!Scan) showed high accuracy, but their use in clinical practice was limited by longer capture time, multiple wiring, and complex software for analysis. Crisalix was considered the most user-friendly, less bothering for patients, and truly portable, but its use was limited to the face because the software does not include vulva and hand. Three-dimensional technologies exploiting the principle of passive stereophotogrammetry such as LifeViz Mini and Vectra H1 were the most versatile for assessing accurately multiple body areas, representing overall the best long-term value for money. Therefore, 3D portable technology is a non-invasive, accurate, and reproducible method to assess the volumetric outcome after facial, vulval, and hand injectables. The choice of the 3D system should be based on the clinical need and resources available.
Almadori et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: