应用两种方法对不规则血肿模型体积测量的对比研究

目的应用PACS提供的计算机辅助的体积分析方法与ABC/2公式法分别对不同体积的不规则血肿模型进行测量,对比两种测量方法的异同。方法制作20ml、40ml及60ml不规则血肿模型并进行64排CT扫描,分别用计算机辅助法与ABC/2公式法进行体积测量,比较两种方法所得结果及所耗费时间的差异。结果计算机辅助法测量三种模型的结果及耗时分别为(20.80±1.27)ml,(74±5)″;(40.60±1.47)ml,(111±9)″;(67.32±1.32)ml,(159±9)″。ABC/2公式法分别为(24.27±1.21)ml,(49±4)″;(45.20±0.86)ml,(54±7)和(80.67±4.31)ml,(59±7)″。两种方法的测量结果及耗费时间均具有统计差异。测量40ml模型时两种方法的误差率最小,ABC/2测量60ml模型的误差率最大。结论两种方法均高估了血肿模型体积,ABC/2法误差更大。计算机辅助法测量更稳定而ABC/2公式法简单且效率更高。

Two methods for volume measurement of irregular hematoma models:a comparative study

Objective By way of two measurement methods,computer-assisted volumetric analysis(CAVA)and ABC/2 formula provided by picture archiving and communication systems(PACS),to measure the irregular hematoma models,the similarities and differences of the two methods were compared.Methods In order to compare the difference of measurement and time consuming between methods of CAVA and ABC/2 formula,irregular hematoma models of 20 ml,40 ml and 60 ml had been made and scanned by 64 slice CT.Results The results of volume and time consuming for CAVA is(20.8±1.27)ml,(74±5)″and(40.60±1.47)ml,(111±9)″,and(67.32±1.32)ml,(159±9)″while(24.27±1.21)ml,(49±4)″and(45.20±0.86)ml,(54±7)″and(80.67±4.31)ml,(59±7)″for ABC/2 formula respectively.The measurement results and time consumption of the two methods are statistically different.The two methods have the smallest error rate when measuring the 40 ml model,and the ABC/2 method has the largest error rate when measuring the 60 ml model.Conclusion Both methods overestimated the hematoma model volume,the ABC/2 method has the bigger error rate.The CAVA method is more stable while the ABC/2 formula method is simpler and more efficient.