Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsProspective StudyPubMed

Portable three-dimensional imaging to monitor small volume enhancement in face, vulva, and hand: A comparative study.

Almadori A., Speiser S., Ashby I., Lacher R., Bishop D., Mosahebi A.

Prospective Study on Face & Skin, published in J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Prospective Study
Journal
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2022)
Country
Netherlands
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
35659734
DOI
10.1016/j.bjps.2022.04.042
Citations
13

Abstract (original English)

Multiple handheld three-dimensional (3D) systems are available on the market, but data regarding their use in detecting small volumes are limited. The aim of this study was to compare different portable 3D technologies in detecting small volumetric enhancement on a mannequin model and a series of patients. Five portable 3D systems (Artec Eva, Crisalix, Go!Scan, LifeViz Mini, and Vectra H1) were tested in a controlled environment with standardised volumes and in a clinical setting with patients undergoing small volume fat grafting to face, vulva, and hand. Accuracy was assessed with absolute and relative technical error measurement (TEM and rTEM); precision with intra- and inter-observer reliability (r p and ICC); and usability in clinical practice with the following parameters: portability, suitability of use in operating theatre/clinic, ease of use of hardware and software, speed of capture, image quality, patient comfort, and cost. All tested devices presented overall good accuracy in detecting small volumetric changes ranging from 0.5 to 4 cc. Structured-light laser scanners (Artec Eva and Go!Scan) showed high accuracy, but their use in clinical practice was limited by longer capture time, multiple wiring, and complex software for analysis. Crisalix was considered the most user-friendly, less bothering for patients, and truly portable, but its use was limited to the face bec

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
FaceFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalPhotogrammetryReproducibility of ResultsVulva

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research