Can graphic tablets facilitate expedited and more accurate volume measurements?

Abstract

Volume measurements of organs and structures are crucial for medical assessments and have traditionally been performed using computers, with a recent interest in tablets with digital pens. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of the computer mouse and graphic tablet in organ volume measurements based on the Cavalieri Principle. It will compare the advantages and disadvantages of each device, focusing on consistency and measurement duration. The study analyzed a dataset comprising 22 abdominal CT images from females and 21 from males, sourced from the Department of Radiology. Spleen and kidney volumes were quantified using Image J software and the Cavalieri Principle, utilizing both a computer equipped with a mouse and a graphic tablet with a drawing pen. The results revealed that computer mouse and graphic tablet measurements showed similar organ volumes, with average kidney volumes of 181.53 ±51.72 cm³ and 179.34 ±51.37 cm³, respectively, and spleen volumes of 211.03 ±78.47 cm³ and 205.93 ±77.52 cm³, respectively. The computer mouse required 283.55 ±56.03 seconds for the kidney and 386.74 ±106.66 seconds for the spleen, whereas the graphic tablet took only 128.79 ±33.32 seconds for the kidney and 141.91 ±40.18 seconds for the spleen, demonstrating a statistically significant reduction in measurement time (p < 0.001). The findings of this study suggest that graphic tablet provides a comparable level of reliability to the computer mouse for organ volume measurements using the Cavalieri Principle. Additionally, the tablet offers the significant benefit of faster measurement times.

Keywords

• Cavalieri Principle
• Graphical Tablet
• Kidney
• Spleen
• Volume

References

1. Jiang SM, Zhou GW, Shen C, Yan JQ, Wan L, Li QY, et al. [A clinical study on splanchnic hemodynamic changes after orthotopic liver transplantation for patients with portal hypertension]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2008;46(22):1699-702.
2. Logsdon NT, Gallo CM, Pires RS, Sampaio FJ, Favorito LA. Prostate and testicular growth analysis in human fetuses during the second gestational trimester. Prostate. 2021;81(3):214-9.
3. Parenteau CS, Ehrlich P, Ma L, Su GL, Holcombe S, Wang SC. The quantification of liver anatomical changes and assessment of occupant liver injury patterns. Stapp Car Crash J. 2013;57:267-83.
4. Pate WR, Garg N, Wang LB, Wason SE, Barbosa PV. Comparison of Transabdominal and Transrectal Ultrasound for Sizing of the Prostate. Urology. 2020;141:125-9.
5. Schiavon G, Ruggiero A, Schöffski P, van der Holt B, Bekers DJ, Eechoute K, et al. Tumor volume as an alternative response measurement for imatinib treated GIST patients. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48372.
6. Odaci E, Bahadir A, Yildirim Ş, Şahin B, Canan S, Baş O, et al. Volume estimation using the cavalieri principle on computerized tomography and magnetic resonance images and its clinical application: Review Cavalieri prensibi kullanilarak bilgisayarli tomografi ve manyetik rezonans görüntüleri üzerinden hacim hesaplanmasi ve klinik kullanimi. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences. 2005;25(3).
7. Canan S, Sahin B, Odaci E, Unal B, Aslan H, Bilgiç S, et al. Estimation of the reference volume, volume density and volume ratios by a stereological method: Cavalieri's principle. T Klin J Med Sci. 2002;22:7-14.
8. Acer N, Sahin B, Ergür H, Basaloglu H, Ceri NG. Stereological estimation of the orbital volume: a criterion standard study. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(3):921-5.

9. Sahin B, Mazonakis M, Akan H, Kaplan S, Bek Y. Dependence of computed tomography volume measurements upon section thickness: an application to human dry skulls. Clin Anat. 2008;21(6):479-85.
10. Doğan N. Bland-Altman analysis: A paradigm to understand correlation and agreement. Turk J Emerg Med. 2018;18(4):139-41.
11. Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015;25(2):141-51.
12. Sadler WA. Using the variance function to generalize Bland-Altman analysis. Ann Clin Biochem. 2019;56(2):198-203.
13. Demirci FS, Menek B, Atilgan E, Tarakci D. Investigation of the effects of a short opponens splint and structured hand exercise program in computer engineers with wrist pain: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2024;30(1):185-93.
14. James C, James D, Nie V, Schumacher T, Guest M, Tessier J, et al. Musculoskeletal discomfort and use of computers in the university environment. Appl Ergon. 2018;69:128-35.
15. Onyebeke LC, Young JG, Trudeau MB, Dennerlein JT. Effects of forearm and palm supports on the upper extremity during computer mouse use. Appl Ergon. 2014;45(3):564-70.
16. Seuss H, Janka R, Prümmer M, Cavallaro A, Hammon R, Theis R, et al. Development and Evaluation of a Semi-automated Segmentation Tool and a Modified Ellipsoid Formula for Volumetric Analysis of the Kidney in Non-contrast T2-Weighted MR Images. J Digit Imaging. 2017;30(2):244-54.
17. Kyaw L, Thandapani K, Tan L, Peng HM, Goh B, Lu J, et al. Choosing the larger kidney on CT volumetry: a study on the early post-donation kidney function of living donors. Int Urol Nephrol. 2024;56(1):97-102.
18. Cheong B, Muthupillai R, Rubin MF, Flamm SD. Normal values for renal length and volume as measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(1):38-45.
19. Di Pietro S, Torcitto AG, Marcantoni C, Giordano G, Campisi C, Failla G, et al. Calculation of Kidney Volumes with Magnetic Resonance in Patients with Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease: Comparison between Methods. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(23).
20. Sharma K, Caroli A, Quach LV, Petzold K, Bozzetto M, Serra AL, et al. Kidney volume measurement methods for clinical studies on autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0178488.
21. Alam A, Dahl NK, Lipschutz JH, Rossetti S, Smith P, Sapir D, et al. Total Kidney Volume in Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease: A Biomarker of Disease Progression and Therapeutic Efficacy. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;66(4):564-76.
22. Jagtap JM, Gregory AV, Homes HL, Wright DE, Edwards ME, Akkus Z, et al. Automated measurement of total kidney volume from 3D ultrasound images of patients affected by polycystic kidney disease and comparison to MR measurements. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2022;47(7):2408-19.
23. Taylor J, Thomas R, Metherall P, van Gastel M, Cornec-Le Gall E, Caroli A, et al. An Artificial Intelligence Generated Automated Algorithm to Measure Total Kidney Volume in ADPKD. Kidney Int Rep. 2024;9(2):249-56.
24. Simms RJ, Doshi T, Metherall P, Ryan D, Wright P, Gruel N, et al. A rapid high-performance semi-automated tool to measure total kidney volume from MRI in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(8):4188-97.
25. Mazonakis M, Damilakis J, Maris T, Prassopoulos P, Gourtsoyiannis N. Estimation of spleen volume using MR imaging and a random marking technique. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(12):1899-903.
26. Prassopoulos P, Daskalogiannaki M, Raissaki M, Hatjidakis A, Gourtsoyiannis N. Determination of normal splenic volume on computed tomography in relation to age, gender and body habitus. Eur Radiol. 1997;7(2):246-8.
27. Henderson JM, Heymsfield SB, Horowitz J, Kutner MH. Measurement of liver and spleen volume by computed tomography. Assessment of reproducibility and changes found following a selective distal splenorenal shunt. Radiology. 1981;141(2):525-7.
28. Fateh SM, Mohammed NA, Mahmood KA, Hasan Α, Tahir SH, Kakamad FH, et al. Sonographic measurement of splenic size and its correlation with body parameters. Med Int (Lond). 2023;3(1):7.
29. Badran DH, Kalbouneh HM, Al-Hadidi MT, Shatarat AT, Tarawneh ES, Hadidy AM, et al. Ultrasonographic assessment of splenic volume and its correlation with body parameters in a Jordanian population. Saudi Med J. 2015;36(8):967-72.
30. Ehimwenma O, Tagbo MT. Determination of normal dimension of the spleen by ultrasound in an endemic tropical environment. Niger Med J. 2011;52(3):198-203.
31. Asghar A, Agrawal D, Yunus SM, Sharma PK, Zaidi SH, Sinha A. Standard Splenic Volume Estimation in North Indian Adult Population: Using 3D Reconstruction of Abdominal CT Scan Images. Anat Res Int. 2011;2011:707325.