Assessment of the Efficiency of Measuring Foot and Ankle Edema with a 3D Portable Scanner

To prospectively evaluate the reliability of a portable optical scanner compared to the water displacement technique for volumetric measurements of the foot and ankle and to compare the acquisition time associated with these two methods. Foot volume was measured in 29 healthy volunteers (58 feet, 24...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Bioengineering (Basel) 2023-05, Vol.10 (5), p.549
Main Authors: Beldame, Julien, Sacco, Riccardo, Munoz, Marie-Aude, Masse, Marion, Lalevée, Matthieu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
3D imaging
Ankle
Bioengineering
Clinical medicine
Correlation coefficients
Dropsy
Edema
Evaluation
Feet
Fingers & toes
foot volume
Heart failure
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
Methods
optical scanner
Optical scanners
Physiological aspects
Portability
Reliability analysis
Reproducibility
Scanners
Shoes & boots
Surgery
Thrombosis
volumetric measurements
water volumeter
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To prospectively evaluate the reliability of a portable optical scanner compared to the water displacement technique for volumetric measurements of the foot and ankle and to compare the acquisition time associated with these two methods. Foot volume was measured in 29 healthy volunteers (58 feet, 24 females and 5 males) by a 3D scanner (UPOD-S 3D Laser Full-Foot Scanner®) and by water displacement volumetry. Measurements were performed on both feet, up to a height of 10 cm above the ground. The acquisition time for each method was evaluated. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient, and a Student's -test were performed. Mean foot volume was 869.7 +/- 165.1 cm (3D scanner) versus 867.9 +/- 155.4 cm (water-displacement volumetry) ( < 10 ). The concordance of measurements was 0.93, indicative of a high correlation between the two techniques. Volumes were 47.8 cm lower when using the 3D scanner versus water volumetry. After statistically correcting this underestimation, the concordance was improved (0.98, residual bias = -0.03 +/- 35.1 cm ). The mean examination time was 4.2 +/- 1.7 min (3D optical scanner) versus 11.1 +/- 2.9 min (water volumeter) ( < 10 ). Ankle/foot volumetric measurements performed using this portable 3D scanner are reliable and fast and can be used in clinical practice and research.
ISSN:2306-5354
2306-5354
DOI:10.3390/bioengineering10050549