Rubens Spin-Neto

Detection of patient movement during CBCT examination using video observation compared with an accelerometer-gyroscope tracking system

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Standard

Detection of patient movement during CBCT examination using video observation compared with an accelerometer-gyroscope tracking system. / Spin-Neto, Rubens; Matzen, Louise Hauge; Schropp, Lars Wisti; Gotfredsen, Erik; Wenzel, Ann.

I: Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Bind 46, Nr. 2, 27.01.2017, s. 20160289.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{c552a59ddba54d038f4f4494d66d2e50,
title = "Detection of patient movement during CBCT examination using video observation compared with an accelerometer-gyroscope tracking system",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Compare video observation (VO) with a novel three-dimensional registration method, based on an accelerometer-gyroscope (AG) system, to detect patient movement during CBCT examination. The movements were further analyzed according to complexity and patient's age.METHODS: 181 patients (118 female/63 male; age average 30 years, range: 9-84), in whom 206 CBCT examinations were performed, were video-recorded during examination. An AG was at the same time attached to the patient's head to track head position in three dimensions. Three observers scored patient movement (yes/no) by VO. AG provided movement data on the x-, y-, and z-axis. Thresholds for AG-based registration were defined at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 mm (movement distance). Movement detected by VO was compared with that registered by AG, according to movement complexity (uniplanar vs. multiplanar, as defined by AG), and patient's age (≤15, 16-30, ≥31 years old).RESULTS: According to AG, movement ≥0.5 mm was present in 160 (77.7{\%}) examinations. According to VO, movement was present in 46 (22.3{\%}) examinations. One VO-detected movement was not registered by AG. Overall, VO did not detect 71.9{\%} of the movements registered by AG at the 0.5 mm threshold. At a movement distance ≥4 mm, 20{\%} of the AG-registered movements were not detected by VO. Multiplanar movements such as lateral head rotation (72.1{\%}) and nodding/swallowing (52.6{\%}) were more often detected by VO in comparison to uniplanar movements, such as head lifting (33.6{\%}) and antero-posterior translation (35.6{\%}), at the 0.5 mm threshold. The prevalence of moving patients was highest in patients younger than 16 years (64.3{\%} for VO and 92.3{\%} for AG-based registration at the 0.5 mm threshold).CONCLUSIONS: AG-based movement registration resulted in a higher prevalence of patient movement during CBCT examination than VO. AG-registered multiplanar movements were more frequently detected also by VO than uniplanar movements. The prevalence of moving patients was highest in patients younger than 16 years.",
author = "Rubens Spin-Neto and Matzen, {Louise Hauge} and Schropp, {Lars Wisti} and Erik Gotfredsen and Ann Wenzel",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1259/dmfr.20160289",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "20160289",
journal = "Dentomaxillofacial Radiology",
issn = "0250-832X",
publisher = "British Institute of Radiology",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Detection of patient movement during CBCT examination using video observation compared with an accelerometer-gyroscope tracking system

AU - Spin-Neto, Rubens

AU - Matzen, Louise Hauge

AU - Schropp, Lars Wisti

AU - Gotfredsen, Erik

AU - Wenzel, Ann

PY - 2017/1/27

Y1 - 2017/1/27

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Compare video observation (VO) with a novel three-dimensional registration method, based on an accelerometer-gyroscope (AG) system, to detect patient movement during CBCT examination. The movements were further analyzed according to complexity and patient's age.METHODS: 181 patients (118 female/63 male; age average 30 years, range: 9-84), in whom 206 CBCT examinations were performed, were video-recorded during examination. An AG was at the same time attached to the patient's head to track head position in three dimensions. Three observers scored patient movement (yes/no) by VO. AG provided movement data on the x-, y-, and z-axis. Thresholds for AG-based registration were defined at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 mm (movement distance). Movement detected by VO was compared with that registered by AG, according to movement complexity (uniplanar vs. multiplanar, as defined by AG), and patient's age (≤15, 16-30, ≥31 years old).RESULTS: According to AG, movement ≥0.5 mm was present in 160 (77.7%) examinations. According to VO, movement was present in 46 (22.3%) examinations. One VO-detected movement was not registered by AG. Overall, VO did not detect 71.9% of the movements registered by AG at the 0.5 mm threshold. At a movement distance ≥4 mm, 20% of the AG-registered movements were not detected by VO. Multiplanar movements such as lateral head rotation (72.1%) and nodding/swallowing (52.6%) were more often detected by VO in comparison to uniplanar movements, such as head lifting (33.6%) and antero-posterior translation (35.6%), at the 0.5 mm threshold. The prevalence of moving patients was highest in patients younger than 16 years (64.3% for VO and 92.3% for AG-based registration at the 0.5 mm threshold).CONCLUSIONS: AG-based movement registration resulted in a higher prevalence of patient movement during CBCT examination than VO. AG-registered multiplanar movements were more frequently detected also by VO than uniplanar movements. The prevalence of moving patients was highest in patients younger than 16 years.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Compare video observation (VO) with a novel three-dimensional registration method, based on an accelerometer-gyroscope (AG) system, to detect patient movement during CBCT examination. The movements were further analyzed according to complexity and patient's age.METHODS: 181 patients (118 female/63 male; age average 30 years, range: 9-84), in whom 206 CBCT examinations were performed, were video-recorded during examination. An AG was at the same time attached to the patient's head to track head position in three dimensions. Three observers scored patient movement (yes/no) by VO. AG provided movement data on the x-, y-, and z-axis. Thresholds for AG-based registration were defined at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 mm (movement distance). Movement detected by VO was compared with that registered by AG, according to movement complexity (uniplanar vs. multiplanar, as defined by AG), and patient's age (≤15, 16-30, ≥31 years old).RESULTS: According to AG, movement ≥0.5 mm was present in 160 (77.7%) examinations. According to VO, movement was present in 46 (22.3%) examinations. One VO-detected movement was not registered by AG. Overall, VO did not detect 71.9% of the movements registered by AG at the 0.5 mm threshold. At a movement distance ≥4 mm, 20% of the AG-registered movements were not detected by VO. Multiplanar movements such as lateral head rotation (72.1%) and nodding/swallowing (52.6%) were more often detected by VO in comparison to uniplanar movements, such as head lifting (33.6%) and antero-posterior translation (35.6%), at the 0.5 mm threshold. The prevalence of moving patients was highest in patients younger than 16 years (64.3% for VO and 92.3% for AG-based registration at the 0.5 mm threshold).CONCLUSIONS: AG-based movement registration resulted in a higher prevalence of patient movement during CBCT examination than VO. AG-registered multiplanar movements were more frequently detected also by VO than uniplanar movements. The prevalence of moving patients was highest in patients younger than 16 years.

U2 - 10.1259/dmfr.20160289

DO - 10.1259/dmfr.20160289

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 27786564

VL - 46

SP - 20160289

JO - Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

JF - Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

SN - 0250-832X

IS - 2

ER -