Comparison of Nasal Analysis by Photographs (2D) against Low-cost Surface Laser Imaging (3D) and against Computed Axial Tomography Imaging

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction In aesthetic surgery, we have a few evaluation tools that numerically and objectively measure the changes we make in patients. This article aimed to evaluate the nasal systematic analysis and compare findings between the three systems of nasal evaluation: photographs 2D, 3D surface imaging with the Kinect system, and 3D CT scan imaging.

Methods We designed a longitudinal and descriptive prospective study with simple non-blind randomization. To compare the systematic nasal analysis between the three methods. If the findings are similar, all three methods would be useful in independent clinical scenarios.

Results A total of 42 observations were included finding a minimum age of 21 with a mean of 28 years old. Also, 64% were female, 93% had adequate facial proportions, and 50% were Fitzpatrick III. For outcome statistics, we found differential nasal deviation between 3D images with a mean of 6.53 mm. While when comparing the nasal dorsum length, we found a statistical significance of p = 0.051. When comparing the nasal dorsum length index, we found no significant difference p = 0.32. Also, we did not find statistical significance when comparing the nasofrontal angle and tip rotation angle p = 1 for both.

Conclusion We found that the population we serve has characteristics of Hispanic mestizo nose. The three methods seem to evaluate systematic nasal analysis in a very similar way, and any of them can be used depending on the scenario and the needs of plastic surgeons.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Human Investigation Committee (IRB) of The Hospital Ruben Leñero approved this study (IRB: 2050100202021).

Informed Consent for Data Usage

Patients consented to the submission of the case report to this journal and masked the eye region in photographs of participants is inadequate protection of anonymity.

Informed Consent for Photographs and Scanning

All participants signed the consent for participation, photographs, scanning, and publication that protected their anonymity.

Publication History

Article published online:
16 December 2022

© 2022. Association of Plastic Surgeons of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

• References

• 1 Rohrich RJ, Durand PD, Dayan E. Changing role of septal extension versus columellar grafts in modern rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (05) 927e-931e DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006730.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Sawh-Martinez R, Perkins K, Madari S, Steinbacher DM. Control of nasal tip position: quantitative assessment of columellar strut versus caudal septal extension graft. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (05) 772e-780e
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Berlin NF, Berssenbrügge P, Runte C. et al. Quantification of facial asymmetry by 2D analysis - a comparison of recent approaches. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014; 42 (03) 265-271
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 FACE-Q © | AESTHETICS SCALES.
  Google Scholar
• 5 Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ. et al. Clinical practice guideline: improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 156 (Suppl 2): S1-S30
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Carniol ET, Adamson PA. Surgical tips for the management of the wide nasal base. Facial Plast Surg 2018; 34 (01) 29-35 DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1621714.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Wähmann MS, Bulut OC, Bran GM, Veit JA, Riedel F. Systematic review of quality-of-life measurement after aesthetic rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2018; 42 (06) 1635-1647
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Pepper JP, Moyer JS. Upper blepharoplasty: the aesthetic ideal. Clin Plast Surg 2013; 40 (01) 133-138
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Manafi A, Kaviani A, Hamedi ZS, Rajabiani A, Manafi N. Evidence-based efficacy of autologous grated cartilage in primary and secondary rhinoplasty. World J Plast Surg 2017; 6 (02) 137-143
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Riphagen JM, van Neck JW, van Adrichem LNA. 3D surface imaging in medicine: a review of working principles and implications for imaging the unsedated child. J Craniofac Surg 2008; 19 (02) 517-524
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 van Heerbeek N, Ingels KJAO, van Loon B, Plooij JM, Bergé SJ. Three dimensional measurement of rhinoplasty results. Rhinology 2009; 47 (02) 121-125
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Deacon AT, Anthony AG, Bhatia SN, Muller JP. Evaluation of a CCD-based facial measurement system. Med Inform (Lond) 1991; 16 (02) 213-228
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Gong X, He Y, An J. et al. Application of a computer-assisted navigation system (CANS) in the delayed treatment of zygomatic fractures: a randomized controlled trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 75 (07) 1450-1463
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Berssenbrügge P, Berlin NF, Kebeck G. et al. 2D and 3D analysis methods of facial asymmetry in comparison. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014; 42 (06) e327-e334
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Tian J. Basics of Photogrammetry. Geod Serv Inc.. 2011 :62. Accessed May 23, 2020 at: https://www.coursehero.com/file/58883437/Basics-of-Photogrammetry-2017pdf/
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Struck R, Cordoni S, Aliotta S, Pérez-Pachón L, Gröning F. Application of photogrammetry in biomedical science. Adv Exp Med Biol 2019; 1120: 121-130
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Koban KC, Härtnagl F, Titze V, Schenck TL, Giunta RE. Chances and limitations of a low-cost mobile 3D scanner for breast imaging in comparison to an established 3D photogrammetric system. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (10) 1417-1423
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Ram MS, Joshi M, Debnath J, Khanna SK. 3 Dimensional Ct. Med J Armed Forces India 1998; 54 (03) 239-242
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Koban KC, Leitsch S, Holzbach T, Volkmer E, Metz PM, Giunta RE. 3D-imaging and analysis for plastic surgery by smartphone and tablet: an alternative to professional systems? [article in German]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2014; 46 (02) 97-104
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Reynolds M, Reynolds M, Adeeb S, El-Bialy T. 3-d volumetric evaluation of human mandibular growth. Open Biomed Eng J 2011; 5 (01) 83-89
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Kovacs L, Eder M, Zimmermann A. et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of breast augmentation and the influence of anatomic and round implants on operative breast shape changes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36 (04) 879-887
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Wheat JS, Choppin S, Goyal A. Development and assessment of a Microsoft Kinect based system for imaging the breast in three dimensions. Med Eng Phys 2014; 36 (06) 732-738
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Pöhlmann STL, Harkness E, Taylor CJ, Gandhi A, Astley SM. Preoperative implant selection for unilateral breast reconstruction using 3D imaging with the Microsoft Kinect sensor. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70 (08) 1059-1067
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Henseler H, Bonkat SK, Vogt PM, Rosenhahn B. The Kinect recording system for objective three- and four-dimensional breast assessment with image overlays. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69 (02) e27-e34
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Henseler H, Kuznetsova A, Vogt P, Rosenhahn B. Validation of the Kinect device as a new portable imaging system for three-dimensional breast assessment. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 (04) 483-488
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Fire K. Dallas Rhinoplasty: Nasal Surgery by the Masters. 3rd ed.. Florida: CRC Press; 2014
  Google Scholar
• 27 Rohrich RJ. Chapter 15 Nasal analysis and anatomy. from book Plast Surg (Oakv) 2017; 2: 417-429 DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-35697-8.00015-9.
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 28 Cantor AB, Lee H. Sample-size calculations for Cohen's kappa. Psychol Methods 1996; l (02) 150-153
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 29 Persichetti P, Simone P, Langella M, Marangi GF, Carusi C. Digital photography in plastic surgery: how to achieve reasonable standardization outside a photographic studio. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2007; 31 (02) 194-200
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Yavuzer R, Smirnes S, Jackson IT. Guidelines for standard photography in plastic surgery. Ann Plast Surg 2001; 46 (03) 293-300
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Rendón-Medina MA, Andrade-Delgado L, Telich-Tarriba JE, Fuente-Del-Campo A, Altamirano-Arcos CA. Dimensional error in rapid prototyping with open source software and low-cost 3D-printer. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (01) e1646
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Rendón-Medina MA, Hanson-Viana E, Palacios-Juarez J, Sandoval-Rodriguez JI. Application of low-cost fused deposition modeling additive manufacturing rapid anatomic models in patients with rhino-cerebral mucormycosis treated with maxillectomy. Eur J Plast Surg 2019; 299-304
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 33 Rendón-Medina MA, Hanson-Viana E, Montoya-García SC, Vázquez-Morales HL, Pacheco-López RC. Time reduction by prebending osteosynthesis plates using 3D-printed anatomical models, in patients treated with open reduction and internal fixation. J Craniofac Surg 2021; 32 (04) 1491-1493
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar