Semi-automatic magnetic resonance imaging based orbital fat volumetry: reliability and correlation with computed tomography. Issue 3 (March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Willaert, R.; Degrieck, B.; Orhan, K.; Deferm, J.; Politis, C.; Shaheen, E.; Jacobs, R.
• Is Part Of: International journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery. Volume 50:Issue 3(2021)
• Page Start: 416
• Page End: 422
• Publication Date: 2021-03
• Subjects: computed tomography -- magnetic resonance imaging -- Graves' Orbitopathy -- orbit -- computer-assisted image processing; Mouth -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentistry, Operative; Oral Surgical Procedures; Surgery, Oral; Dentistry; Maxilla -- Surgery; Mouth -- Surgery; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 617.52059
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.07.027
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0901-5027

Abstract

Abstract: Post-processing analysis can provide valuable information for diagnosis and planning of orbital disorders. This cross-sectional study aims to evaluate the reliability of semi-automatic, orbital fat volumetry using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Two observers assessed the orbital fat volume using a standard MRI protocol (3T, T1w sequence) in 12 orbits diagnosed with Graves' orbitopathy (GO) and 10 healthy control orbits. MRI and computed tomography (CT) based analysis were compared. Intra-observer variability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.70, 0.95]) and interobserver agreement was moderate (ICC 0.55; 95% CI [−0.09, 0.81]), which corresponds to a mean percentage difference of 1.3% and 17.9% of the total orbital fat volume. Mean differences between MRI and CT measurements were, respectively, 1.1 cm 3 ( P = 0.064, 95% CI [−0.20, 2.43]) and 1.4 cm 3 ( P =0.016, 95% CI [0.21, 2.56]) for the control and the GO group. MRI volumetry was strongly correlated with CT (Pearson's r= 0.7, P <0.001). We conclude that orbital fat volumetry is feasible with a semi-automatic segmentation procedure and standard MRI protocol. Correlation with CT volumetry is good, but considerable bias may derive from observer variability and these errors should be taken into account for the purpose of volumetric analysis. Better definition of error sources may increase measurement accuracy.