FRONTAL VE SFENOİD SİNUS ALAN VE HACMİNİN MANUEL VE YARI OTOMATİK SEGMENTASYON MODÜLÜ KULLANILARAK BİLGİSAYARLI TOMOGRAFİDE İNCELENMESİ

Amaç: Frontal sinus (FS) ve sfenoid sinus (SS) alan ve hacimlerinin ölçümlerinde üçüncü jenerasyon yazılımların manuel ve yarı otomatik segmantesyon modüllerinin etkinliğinin bilgisayarlı tomografi (BT) görüntüleri kullanılarak karşılaştırılmasıdır. Yöntem: Yaşları 19-73 arasında değişen (ortalama 37,38 ± 16,32 yıl) 200 hastaya (96 kadın, 104 erkek) ait BT görüntüleri rastgele seçilmiştir. FS ve SS alan ve hacimleri InVesalius 3.1.1 (CTI, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil) yazılımın manuel ve yarı otomatik segmentasyon modülleri kullanılarak ölçülmüştür. Bulgular Manuel (4,80 ± 1,86 $cm^2$) ve yarı otomatik (4,84 ± 1,83 $cm^2$) segmentasyon modlarındaki SS alan ölçümleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmuştur (p

COMPARISON OF MANUAL AND SEMIAUTOMATIC SEGMENTATION METHODS FOR CALCULATING FRONTAL AND SPHENOID SINUS AREA AND VOLUME USING OF COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the manual and semi-automatic segmentation modules of the third-generation software used in computedtomography (CT) images in calculating frontal sinus (FS) and sphenoid sinus (SS) areas and volumes.Methods: CT images of 200 patients (96 female, 104 male) between the ages of 19 and 73 years (mean 37.38 ± 16.32 years) were randomly selected.Volume and area of FS and SS were segmented manually and semi-automatically using InVesalius 3.1.1 software (CTI, Campinas, São Paulo,Brazil).Results: There was a statistically significant difference was found the main SS area in manual mode and semi-automatic mode as 4.80 ± 1.86 $cm^2$ and 4.84 ± 1.83 $cm^2$, respectively. The main SS volumes were in manual mode and semi-automatic mode as 8.44 ± 3.55 $cm^3$and 9.62 ± 3.21 $cm^3$, respectively. The main FS volumes were in manual mode and semi-automatic mode as 5.32 ± 2.04 $cm^3$ and 6.65 ± 2.70 $cm^3$, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference was found between manual mode and semi-automatic mode in volume calculation (p

PDF

___

1. Besana JL, Rogers TL. Personal identification using the frontal sinus. J Forensic Sci. 2010; 55(3):584–589. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01281.x.
2. Akhlaghi M, Bakhtavar K, Moarefdoost J, Kamali A, Rafeifar S. Frontal sinus parameters in computed tomography and sex determination. Leg Med (Tokyo). 2016; 19:22–27. doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2016.01.008
3. Belaldavar C, Kotrashetti VS, Hallikerimath SR, Kale AD. Assessment of frontal sinus dimensions to determine sexual dimorphism among Indian adults. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2014; 6(1):25–30. doi: 10.4103/0975-1475.127766.
4. Christensen AM. Assessing the variation in individual frontal sinus outlines. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005;127(3):291-295. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20116.
5. Quatrehomme G, Fronty P, Sapanet M, Grevin G, Bailet P, Ollier A. Identification by frontal sinus pattern in forensic anthropology. Forensic Sci Int. 1996;83(2):147-153. doi:10.1016/s0379-0738(96)02033-6.
6. Rahmati A, Ghafari R, AnjomShoa M. Normal variations of sphenoid sinus and the adjacent structures detected in cone beam computed tomography. J Dent (Shiraz). 2016;17(1):32– 37. PMCID: PMC4771050
7. Bademci G, Ünal B. Surgical importance of neurovascular relationships of paranasal sinus region. Turk Neurosurg. 2005;15:93-96.
8. Mamatha H, Saraswathi G, Prasanna LC. Variations of sphenoid sinus and their impact on related neurovascular structures. Curr Neurobiol. 2010;1(2):121-124.
9. Eggesbo HB. Radiological imaging of inflammatory lesions in the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(4):872-888. doi:10.1007/s00330-005-0068-2
10. Kazmi KS, Shames JP. Imaging of the paranasal sinuses. J Am Osteopath Coll Radiol. 2015;20(7):27.
11. Tatlisumak E, Ovali GY, Asirdizer M, et al. CT study on morphometry of frontal sinus. Clin Anat. 2008; 21(4):287-293. doi: 10.1002/ca.20617.
12. Emirzeoglu M, Sahin B, Bilgic S, Celebi M, Uzun A. Volumetric evaluation of the paranasal sinuses in normal subjects using computer tomography images: a stereological study. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2007;34(2):191-195. doi:10.1016/j.anl.2006.09.003.
13. Pirner S, Tingelhoff K, Wagner I, et al. CT-based manual segmentation and evaluation of paranasal sinuses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266(4):507–518. doi: 10.1007/ s00405-008-0777-7.
14. de Water VR, Saridin JK, Bouw F, Murawska MM, Koudstaal MJ. Measuring upper airway volume: accuracy and reliability of Dolphin 3D software compared to manual segmentation in craniosynostosis patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(1):139-144. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.07.034.
15. Cohen O, Warman M, Fried M, et al. Volumetric analysis of the maxillary, sphenoid and frontal sinuses: A comparative computerized tomography based study. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2018;45(1):96-102. doi: 10.1016/j.anl.2017.03.003.
16. Karakas S, Kavakli A. Morphometric examination of the paranasal sinuses and mastoid air cells using computed tomography. Ann Saudi Med. 2005;25(1):41–45. doi:10.5144/0256-4947.2005.41.
17. Kapakin S. The paranasal sinuses: three-dimensional reconstruction, photo-realistic imaging, and virtual endoscopy. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2016;75(3):326-333. doi: 10.5603/FM.a2016.0006.
18. Forst D, Nijjar S, Flores-Mir C, Carey J, Secanell M, Lagravere M. Comparison of in vivo 3D cone-beam computed tomography tooth volume measurement protocols. Prog Orthod. 2014;15(1):69. doi:10.1186/s40510-014-0069-2.
19. Alsufyani NA, Hess A, Noga M, et al. New algorithm for semiautomatic segmentation of nasal cavity and pharyngeal airway in comparison with manual segmentation using conebeam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;150(4):703-712. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.024.
20. Panou E, Motro M, Ateş M, Acar A, Erverdi N. Dimensional changes of maxillary sinuses and pharyngeal airway in Class III patients undergoing bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(5):824-831. doi:10.2319/100212-777.1.
21. Szabo BT, Aksoy S, Repassy G, Csomo K, Dobo-Nagy C, Orhan K. Comparison of hand and semiautomatic tracing methods for creating maxillofacial artificial organs using sequences of computed tomography (CT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Int J Artif Organs. 2017;40(6):307-312. doi: 10.5301/ijao.5000580.
22. Wang J, Bidari S, Inoue K, Yang H, Rhoton A Jr. Extensions of the sphenoid sinus: a new classification. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(4):797-816. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000367619.24800.B1.
23. Scuderi AJ, Harnsberger HR, Boyer RS. Pneumatization of the paranasal sinuses: normal features of importance to the accurate interpretation of CT scans and MR images. Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160(5):1101–1104. doi:10.2214/ajr.160.5.8470585
24. Yonetsu K, Watanabe M, Nakamura T. Age-related expansion and reduction in aeration of the sphenoid sinus: volume assessment by helical CT scanning. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 200;21(1):179-182. PMID:10669247.
25. Wood RE. Forensic aspects of maxillofacial radiology. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;159(1):47–55. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.015
26. InVesalius 3.1.1 Software User Guide. Centro de Tecnologia da Informação. 2017. https://www.cti.gov.br/invesalius.
27. Selcuk OT, Erol B, Renda L, et al. Do altitude and climate affect paranasal sinus volume? J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(7):1059–1064. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.05.013.
28. Özer CM, Atalar K, Öz II, Toprak S, Barut Ç. Sphenoid Sinus in Relation to Age, Gender, and Cephalometric Indices. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(8):2319-2326. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004869.
29. Aydemir L, Doruk C, Çaytemel B, et al. Paranasal sinus volumes and headache: is there a relation? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;276(8):2267-2271. doi: 10.1007/s00405-019-05461-1.
30. Yun IS, Kim YO, Lee SK, Rah DK. Three-dimensional computed tomographic analysis of frontal sinus in Asians. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22(2):462-467. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182074367.
31. Michel J, Paganelli A, Varoquaux A, et al. Determination of sex: interest of frontal sinus 3D reconstructions. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60(2):269-273. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12630.