We have located links that may give you full text access.
A comparative study of two pelvimetry methods: 3D models based on CT and MRI.
European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 2024 Februrary 14
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To compare 3D models based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 3D models based on computed tomography (CT) in pelvimetry.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 141 patients who underwent both pelvic 3D MRI and 3D CT pelvimetry for gynecological diseases from December 2009 to October 2020 was performed. The two pelvimetry methods were compared by paired Student's t test, Pearson's correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: The differences between methods for each diameter were statistically significant, except for those of the posterior sagittal diameter of the pelvic inlet (t:-0.71, P = 0.5) and the anteroposterior pelvic outlet diameter (t:0.02, P = 0.98). 3D MRI and 3D CT pelvimetry strongly correlated with each other (r: min 0.7, max: 0.96, P < 0.01). The Bland-Altman results indicate that the difference points of each pelvic diameter line greater than 95 % are within the 95 % limits of agreement. The ICC was good to very good for all pelvimetric measurements using either MRI-3D (ICC: 0.64-0.98) or CT-3D (ICC: 0.72-0.98) between the two readers.
CONCLUSIONS: 3D MRI and 3D CT pelvimetry have good agreement and reproducibility, indicating that 3D MRI is reliable for pelvimetry.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 141 patients who underwent both pelvic 3D MRI and 3D CT pelvimetry for gynecological diseases from December 2009 to October 2020 was performed. The two pelvimetry methods were compared by paired Student's t test, Pearson's correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: The differences between methods for each diameter were statistically significant, except for those of the posterior sagittal diameter of the pelvic inlet (t:-0.71, P = 0.5) and the anteroposterior pelvic outlet diameter (t:0.02, P = 0.98). 3D MRI and 3D CT pelvimetry strongly correlated with each other (r: min 0.7, max: 0.96, P < 0.01). The Bland-Altman results indicate that the difference points of each pelvic diameter line greater than 95 % are within the 95 % limits of agreement. The ICC was good to very good for all pelvimetric measurements using either MRI-3D (ICC: 0.64-0.98) or CT-3D (ICC: 0.72-0.98) between the two readers.
CONCLUSIONS: 3D MRI and 3D CT pelvimetry have good agreement and reproducibility, indicating that 3D MRI is reliable for pelvimetry.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app