Standardized measurement of auricle: A method of high‑precision and reliability based on 3D scanning and Mimics software

Wang,Di; Jiang,Haiyue; Pan,Bo; Yang,Qinghua; He,Leren; Sun,Hengyun; Yu,Xiaobo; Lin,Lin

doi:10.3892/etm.2019.8159

Standardized measurement of auricle: A method of high‑precision and reliability based on 3D scanning and Mimics software

Authors:
- Di Wang
- Haiyue Jiang
- Bo Pan
- Qinghua Yang
- Leren He
- Hengyun Sun
- Xiaobo Yu
- Lin Lin
View Affiliations

Affiliations: The Seventh Department of Plastic Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100144, P.R. China
Published online on: November 1, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.8159
Pages: 4575-4582
Copyright: © Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Objective measurement is important for diagnosing congenital or acquired auricular abnormalities and the evaluation of therapeutic efficacy. However, methods applied in the past were mostly inaccurate and unreliable. The present study aimed to introduce five standardized indices for auricle measurement and present a highly precise and reliable methodology combining three‑dimensional (3D) scanning techniques and the Materialise Mimics software for the evaluation of auricle sizes. A total of 20 normal ears were measured independently by four surgeons using the standardized digital method with 3D scanning technique and the traditional manual method. Parameters of the auricle, including the length and width, arc length, cranioauricular height and angle were measured using the Mimics software. Paired t‑test, Wilcoxon signed rank test and intra‑class correlation coefficients (ICC) were performed on the data to assess the precision, uniformity and observer independence of the method. Pearson's product moment correlation was calculated to assess the correlation between auricle length and width in addition to the correlation between cranioauricular height and angle. No significant differences were indicated between measurements of five auricular parameters made by two surgeons using the digital method. However, significant differences were found using the manual method (P<0.01). ICC values derived from digital measurements ranged from 0.901 to 0.987, whereas those derived from manual measurements ranged from 0.526 to 0.807. These results suggested that the standardized digital method was replicable and reliable compared with the traditional manual method. Pearson's coefficient analysis showed that there was a significant correlation between cranioauricular height and angle (P<0.05), but no correlations were found between the height and width of the auricle (P>0.05). Taken together, data from the present study suggested that measurements of the length and width, arch length, and cranioauricular height and angle of auricles using the standardized digital method combining 3D scanning with the Mimics software were comprehensive, precise, convenient, repeatable and reliable.

View Figures

View References

1	Pawar SS, Koch CA and Murakami C: Treatment of prominent ears and otoplasty: A contemporary review. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 17:449–454. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Mohammadi AA, Imani MT, Kardeh S, Karami MM and Kherad M: Non-surgical management of congenital auricular deformities. World J Plast Surg. 5:139–147. 2016.PubMed/NCBI
3	Akter F, Mennie JC, Stewart K and Bulstrode N: Patient-reported outcome measures in microtia surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 70:416–424. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Farkas LG: Anthropometry of the normal and defective ear. Clin Plast Surg. 17:213–221. 1990.PubMed/NCBI
5	Zhao H, Lin G, Seong YH, Shi J, Xu J and Huang W: Anthropometric research of congenital auricular deformities for newborns. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 32:1176–1183. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Leclère FM, Trelles M and Mordon SR: Cartilage reshaping for protruding ears: A prospective long term follow-up of 32 procedures. Lasers Surg Med. 43:875–880. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	da Silva Freitas R, Sanchez ME, Manzotti MS, Baras F, Ono MC and de Oliveira e Cruz GA: Comparing cephaloauricular and scaphaconchal angles in prominent ear patients and control subjects. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 32:620–623. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Kobayashi S and Maegawa J: Ear elevation using 2-tiered costal cartilage on the same side as the reconstructed framework. J Craniofac Surg. 22:1796–1799. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Jiafeng L, Jiaming S and Xiaodan L: Auricular reconstruction using a novel three-flap technique improves the auriculocephalic angle. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 69:1430–1435. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	You W, Liu LJ, Chen HX, Xiong JY, Wang DM, Huang JH, Ding JL and Wang DP: Application of 3D printing technology on the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures (Neer3-part and 4-part) in old people. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 102:897–903. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Zhao X, Yu RT, Li JS, Xu K and Li X: Clinical value of multi-slice 3-dimensional computed tomographic angiography in the preoperative assessment of meningioma. Exp Ther Med. 6:475–478. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Glittenberg C and Binder S: Using 3D computer simulations to enhance ophthalmic training. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 26:40–49. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Li L, Zeng L, Lin ZJ, Cazzell M and Liu H: Tutorial on use of intraclass correlation coefficients for assessing intertest reliability and its application in functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based brain imaging. J Biomed Opt. 20:508012015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Thorne CH and Wilkes G: Ear deformities, otoplasty, and ear reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 129:e701–e716. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
15	Lee BM, Kang SJ and Sun H: Simple aesthetic correction for patients with acute auriculocephalic angle. Arch Craniofac Surg. 16:24–28. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Jiang H, Pan B, Zhao Y, Lin L, Liu L and Zhuang H: A 2-stage ear reconstruction for microtia. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 13:162–166. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Shinohara H, Matsuo K, Hataya Y and Taki K: Correlation between projection of the ear, the inferior crus, and the antihelical body: Analysis based on computed tomography. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 41:288–292. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Johns AL, Lucash RE, Im DD and Lewin SL: Pre and post-operative psychological functioning in younger and older children with microtia. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 68:492–497. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	DellaCroce FJ, Green S and Aguilar EF III: Framework growth after reconstruction for microtia: Is it real and what are the implications? Plast Reconstr Surg. 108:1479–1486. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Zhou J, Pan B, Yang Q, Zhao Y, He L, Lin L, Sun H, Song Y, Yu X, Sun Z and Jiang H: Three-dimensional autologous cartilage framework fabrication assisted by new additive manufactured ear-shaped templates for microtia reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 69:1436–1444. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Khamaisy S, Zuiderbaan HA, Thein R, Nawabi DH, Joskowicz L and Pearle AD: Coronal tibiofemoral subluxation: A new measurement method. Knee. 21:1069–1071. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Huang JW, Shan XF, Lu XG and Cai ZG: Preliminary clinic study on computer assisted mandibular reconstruction: The positive role of surgical navigation technique. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 37:202015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Asif MK, Nambiar P, Mani SA, Ibrahim NB, Khan IM and Sukumaran P: Dental age estimation employing CBCT scans enhanced with Mimics software: Comparison of two different approaches using pulp/tooth volumetric analysis. J Forensic Leg Med. 54:53–61. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS and Cangialosi TJ: Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 136:16.e1–e4; discussion 16. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
25	Bootvong K, Liu Z, McGrath C, Hägg U, Wong RW, Bendeus M and Yeung S: Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: Reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod. 32:589–595. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF and Cangialosi TJ: Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 124:101–105. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Correia GD, Habib FA and Vogel CJ: Tooth-size discrepancy: A comparison between manual and digital methods. Dental Press J Orthod. 19:107–113. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Nawi N, Mohamed AM, Marizan Nor M and Ashar NA: Correlation and agreement of a digital and conventional method to measure arch parameters. J Orofac Orthop. 79:19–27. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Wang D, Pan B, Lin L, Yang Q, He L, Song Y, Zhou J and Jiang H: New methods for specialized subjective and high-precision objective evaluation of constricted ears: A pilot study. Medicine (Baltimore). 97:e129972018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI