Abstract
OBJECTIVE—To assess the clinical feasibility and the accuracy of two pragmatic methods in comparison with a conventional computer based method of measurement of masses from CT. METHODS—Nineteen CT scans of 11 patients with severe head injury, showing 34 traumatic lesions, were examined. The volume of every lesion was digitally measured, then a panel of three examiners independently repeated the measurement using the ellipsoid and the Cavalieri method in random order. RESULTS—All the lesions were identified by all the readers and the mean volume measured by each examiner differed by less than 1.5ml. The average reading time for each scan was 4 minutes for the ellipsoid and 7 minutes for the Cavalieri method. The average volume of the lesions was 34.2 (SD 35) ml with the digital system, and 38.4 (SD 41) ml and 34.8 (SD 36) ml for the ellipsoid and the Cavalieri readings respectively. The average difference between the applied technique and the digital system was 0.57 (SD 9.99) ml for the Cavalieri direct estimator and 0.20 (SD 15.48) ml for the ellipsoid method. The 95% confidence interval for this difference fell between -2.75 and 3.89 ml for the Cavalieri, and between -4.94 and 5.35 ml for the ellipsoid method. There were 19 lesions >25 ml; the ellipsoid method identified 16 of them, whereas 17were classified with the Cavalieri method. When considering individual lesions rather than the average volume, discrepancies were detected with both methods. The ellipsoid method was less precise, especially when extracerebral lesions were measured. CONCLUSIONS—Both pragmatic methods are inferior to computer based reading, which is the choice when accurate volume estimation is necessary. However, if a digital volumetric determination of the lesions using a CT computer is not possible, the two pragmatic methods offer an alternative.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (117.0 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Bland J. M., Altman D. G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Clatterbuck R. E., Sipos E. P. The efficient calculation of neurosurgically relevant volumes from computed tomographic scans using Cavalieri's Direct Estimator. Neurosurgery. 1997 Feb;40(2):339–343. doi: 10.1097/00006123-199702000-00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gennarelli T. A., Spielman G. M., Langfitt T. W., Gildenberg P. L., Harrington T., Jane J. A., Marshall L. F., Miller J. D., Pitts L. H. Influence of the type of intracranial lesion on outcome from severe head injury. J Neurosurg. 1982 Jan;56(1):26–32. doi: 10.3171/jns.1982.56.1.0026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Harders A., Kakarieka A., Braakman R. Traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage and its treatment with nimodipine. German tSAH Study Group. J Neurosurg. 1996 Jul;85(1):82–89. doi: 10.3171/jns.1996.85.1.0082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- LaMantia K. R., O'Connor T., Barash P. G. Comparing methods of measurement: an alternative approach. Anesthesiology. 1990 May;72(5):781–783. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199005000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marshall L. F., Maas A. I., Marshall S. B., Bricolo A., Fearnside M., Iannotti F., Klauber M. R., Lagarrigue J., Lobato R., Persson L. A multicenter trial on the efficacy of using tirilazad mesylate in cases of head injury. J Neurosurg. 1998 Oct;89(4):519–525. doi: 10.3171/jns.1998.89.4.0519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pasqualin A., Barone G., Cioffi F., Rosta L., Scienza R., Da Pian R. The relevance of anatomic and hemodynamic factors to a classification of cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurgery. 1991 Mar;28(3):370–379. doi: 10.1097/00006123-199103000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]