Applications of 3D Photography in Craniofacial Surgery

Duncan, Christian A.; Pears, NickE; Dai, Hang; Smith, WillA P; O’Higgins, Paul

doi:10.4103/jpn.jpn_48_22

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the challenges in using 3D photogrammetry is finding a reliable and consistent landmark for different images over time 74 . Landmarks with well-defined borders or edges showed higher degrees of reproducibility than those placed on gently curving slopes 75 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Analysis of the Cranial and Facial Shape in Craniosynostosis Patients: A Systematic Review

Kurniawan,

Tio,

Abdel Alim

et al. 2024

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With increasing interest in 3D photogrammetry, diverse methods have been developed for craniofacial shape analysis in craniosynostosis patients. This review provides an overview of these methods and offers recommendations for future studies. A systematic literature search was used to identify publications on 3D photogrammetry analyses in craniosynostosis patients until August 2023. Inclusion criteria were original research reporting on 3D photogrammetry analyses in patients with craniosynostosis and written in English. Sixty-three publications that had reproducible methods for measuring cranial, forehead, or facial shape were included in the systematic review. Cranial shape changes were commonly assessed using heat maps and curvature analyses. Publications assessing the forehead utilized volumetric measurements, angles, ratios, and mirroring techniques. Mirroring techniques were frequently used to determine facial asymmetry. Although 3D photogrammetry shows promise, methods vary widely between standardized and less conventional measurements. A standardized protocol for the selection and documentation of landmarks, planes, and measurements across the cranium, forehead, and face is essential for consistent clinical and research applications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Analysis of the Cranial and Facial Shape in Craniosynostosis Patients: A Systematic Review

Kurniawan,

Tio,

Abdel Alim

et al. 2024

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, surfaces are often visualised by warping a template to statistical estimates of, e.g., mean landmark and semilandmark configuration form [ 48 ]. Beyond this, surfaces representing statistical results, such as the mean, might be used in the clinic to compare patient cranial form with that of the wider population, using clinic and condition-specific (re)parameterisations of reference and patient surfaces [ 49 ]. Another increasingly common application of surfaces arising from geometric morphometric analyses is to use them to build finite element models [ 50 , 51 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Semilandmarking Approaches in the Analysis of Size and Shape

Shui

Profico

O’Higgins

2023

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Often, few landmarks can be reliably identified in analyses of form variation and covariation. Thus, ‘semilandmarking’ algorithms have increasingly been applied to surfaces and curves. However, the locations of semilandmarks depend on the investigator’s choice of algorithm and their density. In consequence, to the extent that different semilandmarking approaches and densities result in different locations of semilandmarks, they can be expected to yield different results concerning patterns of variation and co-variation. The extent of such differences due to methodology is, as yet, unclear and often ignored. In this study, the performance of three landmark-driven semilandmarking approaches is assessed, using two different surface mesh datasets (ape crania and human heads) with different degrees of variation and complexity, by comparing the results of morphometric analyses. These approaches produce different semilandmark locations, which, in turn, lead to differences in statistical results, although the non-rigid semilandmarking approaches are consistent. Morphometric analyses using semilandmarks must be interpreted with due caution, recognising that error is inevitable and that results are approximations. Further work is needed to investigate the effects of using different landmark and semilandmark templates and to understand the limitations and advantages of different semilandmarking approaches.

show abstract

“…In addition, 3D photography is a non-radiation-based modality used to assess cranial shape preoperatively and postoperatively in craniofacial surgeries. 39 Specifically, these images have been used to quantify post-surgical outcomes in scaphocephalic, trigonocephalic, and metopic reconstructions. [40][41][42][43] With the incorporation of artificial intelligence, post-image analysis of 3D photography has been shown to diagnose syndromic and non-syndromic craniosynostosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, 3D photography is a non-radiation-based modality used to assess cranial shape preoperatively and postoperatively in craniofacial surgeries 39 . Specifically, these images have been used to quantify post-surgical outcomes in scaphocephalic, trigonocephalic, and metopic reconstructions 40–43 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Craniosynostosis be Diagnosed on Physical Examination? A Retrospective Review

Zavala,

Zima,

Greives

et al. 2023

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Craniosynostosis is a developmental craniofacial defect in which one or more sutures of the skull fuse together prematurely. Uncorrected craniosynostosis may have serious complications including elevated intracranial pressure, developmental delay, and blindness. Proper diagnosis of craniosynostosis requires a physical examination of the head with assessment for symmetry and palpation of sutures for prominence. Often, if craniosynostosis is suspected, computed tomography (CT) imaging will be obtained. Recent literature has posited that this is unnecessary. This study aims to address whether physical examination alone is sufficient for the diagnosis and treatment planning of single suture craniosynostosis. Between 2015 and 2022, the Divisions of Pediatric Neurosurgery and Pediatric Plastic Surgery at UTHealth Houston evaluated 140 children under 36 months of age with suspected craniosynostosis by physical examination and subsequently ordered CT imaging for preoperative planning. Twenty-three patients received a clinical diagnosis of multi-sutural or syndromic craniosynostosis that was confirmed by CT. One hundred seventeen patients were diagnosed with single suture craniosynostosis on clinical examination and follow-up CT confirmed suture fusion in 109 (93.2%) patients and identified intracranial anomalies in 7 (6.0%) patients. These patients underwent surgical correction. Eight (6.8%) patients showed no evidence of craniosynostosis on CT imaging. Treatment for patients without fused sutures included molding helmets and observation alone. This evidence suggests that physical examination alone may be inadequate to accurately diagnose single suture synostosis, and surgery without preoperative CT evaluation could lead to unindicated procedures.

show abstract

Applications of 3D Photography in Craniofacial Surgery

Cited by 11 publications

References 30 publications

3D Analysis of the Cranial and Facial Shape in Craniosynostosis Patients: A Systematic Review

3D Analysis of the Cranial and Facial Shape in Craniosynostosis Patients: A Systematic Review

A Comparison of Semilandmarking Approaches in the Analysis of Size and Shape

Can Craniosynostosis be Diagnosed on Physical Examination? A Retrospective Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About