Skip to main content
. 2019 Feb 11;7:23. doi: 10.3389/fped.2019.00023

Table 1.

Measurement's accuracy with 3D printed models.

Authors Case Comparison Software Structure Measure (model × structure × operator) Pearson correlation Mean diff (mm) Analysis
Lau et al. (13) 1 3D vs. CT Mimics VSD/Aorta/PB 1 × 3 × 2 0.99 0.23 Pearson
Valverde et al. (14) 20 3D vs. CT Itk-snap 10 vascular diameters 320 0.99 0.27 Pearson
Greil et al. (15) 1 3D vs. mortem Visualization toolkit Distances unclear 0.27 Interactive closest point
Ma et al. (16) 35 3D vs. vivo Philips EBW VSD 35 × 1 × 1 No diff (t = 0.83, P = 0.412 > 0.05) t
Olejnik et al. (17) 8 3 D vs. vivo 3D slicer Vascular diameters and distance 8 × 3 × 1 0.13 ± 0.26 Bland-Altman
3D vs. dicom 8 × 5 × 1 0.19 ± 0.38
Valverde et al. (18) 1 3D vs. MRI Ayra Aorta diameters 2 × 8 × 2 0.18 ± 0.38 Pearson and Bland-Altman
3D vs. X ray 2 × 8 × 2 0.55 ± 0.46
Global 0.36 ± 0.45
Zhao et al. (19) 8 3D vs. CT Mimics VSD/Ao arch/PA 8 × 3 × 1 0.977 Pearson
Olivieri et al. (20) 9 3D vs. echo Mimics VSD and perivalvar leak 22 0.988 0.4 ± 0.9; t : NS Pearson Bland-Altman and t
Ngan et al. (21) 6 3D vs. CT Mimics MAPCA diameters 6 × 1 × 1 0.26–0.85 t
97% accuracy feeling
Farooqi et al. (22) 19 3DM vs. 3DBP Mimics GA/IVC/SVC/PV 19 × 5 × 4 × 2 Blood pool > myocardium Anova
Farooqi et al. (23) 6 3D vs. MR Mimics AA/VSD/RVLA 6 × 3 × 1 0.99 Pearson
AA 0.88 VSD 0.74 RV 0.99

CT, computed tomography; MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging; 3DM, 3D myocardium; 3DBP, 3D bloodpool; VSD, ventricular septal defect; PB, pulmonary branch; Ao Arch, aortic arch; MAPCA, major aortopulmonary collateral artery; SVC, superior vena cava; IVC, inferior vena cava; Ao, Aorta; PA, pulmonary artery; PV, pulmonary valve; AA, aortic annulus; RVLA, right ventricle long axis.