4.6 Article

Airway dimensions measured from micro-computed tomography and high-resolution computed tomography

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 712-720

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00012405

Keywords

computer-assisted image processing; imaging; phantoms; validation studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Volume averaging results in both over- and underestimation of airway dimensions when they are measured by high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). The current authors calibrated computerised measurements of airway dimensions from FIRCT against a novel three-dimensional micro-computed tomography (CT) standard, which has a 50-fold greater resolution, as well as against traditional morphometry. Inflation-fixed porcine lung cubes were scanned by FIRCT and micro-CT. A total of 59 lumen area (Ai), 30 wall area (Aaw) and 11 lumen volume (Vi) measurements were made. Ai was measured from the cut surface of 11 airways by morphometry. Airways in scanned images were matched using branching points. After calibration, the errors of Ai, Aaw and Vi HRCT measurements were determined. The current authors found a systematic, size-dependent underestimation of Ai and overestimation of Aaw from HRCT measurements. This was used to calibrate an HRCT measurement algorithm. The 95% limits of agreement of subsequent measurements were +/- 3.2 mm(2) for Ai, +/- 4.3 mm(2) for Aaw, and +/- 11.2 mm(3) for Vi with no systematic error. Morphometric measurements agreed with micro-CT ( +/- 2.5 mm(2)) without systematic error. In conclusion, micro-computed tomography image data from inflation-fixed airways can be used as calibration standards for three-dimensional lumen volume measurements from high-resolution computed tomography, while morphometry is acceptable for two-dimensional measurements. The image dataset could be used to validate other developmental three-dimensional segmentation algorithms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available