A novel approach quantifying the periorbital morphology: A comparison of direct, 2-dimensional, and 3-dimensional technologies. Issue 8 (August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Guo, Y.; Liu, J.; Ruan, Y.; Rokohl, A.C.; Hou, X.; Li, S.; Jia, R.; Koch, K.R.; Heindl, L.M.
• Is Part Of: Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery. Volume 74:Issue 8(2021)
• Page Start: 1888
• Page End: 1899
• Publication Date: 2021-08
• Subjects: Three-dimensional imaging -- Photography -- Periocular soft tissue -- Periorbital soft tissue -- Eyelid -- Brow; Surgery, Plastic -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; 617.9505
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.12.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1748-6815

Abstract

Summary: Background: The measurement of anatomical structures is critical in plastic and reconstructive surgery. However, few detailed and standardized measurements have been widely used in the periorbital region. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a novel detailed and standardized protocol with 2D and 3D technologies, and explore the relationship between them and direct measurements. Methods: Fifty healthy Caucasians (100 eyes) between 20 and 68 years old were recruited and captured for 3D photographs by VECTRA M3 3D Imaging System. Subsequently, 24 landmarks were located on each 3D photographs following a standardized protocol, and then 19 linear and 3 angular periorbital variables were measured. Furthermore, two-dimensional (2D) and direct measurements were conducted on each subject and compared with 3D measurements and one another. Results: The grand r means across all measurements were 0.77, 0.78, and 0.88 for direct vs. 2D values, direct vs. 3D values, and 3D vs. 2D values, respectively. The mean absolute differences were 1 mm (ranging from 0.2 mm to 3.7 mm) between direct and 3D measurements, 1 mm (ranging from 0.04 mm to 2.4 mm) between direct and 2D measurements, and 1 mm and 6.6° (ranging from 0.04 mm or 0.5° to 3 mm or 12.8°) between 2D and 3D measurements. Conclusions: This study verified the feasibility of this detailed and standardized landmark localization protocol for assessing the periorbital morphology with 2D and 3D technologies. This protocol may work as a bridge communicating with all studies involving any of the three technologies in the future.