Mass volume measurement in severe head injury: accuracy and feasibility oftwo pragmatic methods

Objective-To assess the clinical feasibility and the accuracy of two pragma tic methods in comparison with a conventional computer based method of meas urement of masses from CT. Methods-Nineteen CT scans of 11 patients with severe head injury, showing 3 4 traumatic lesions, were examined. The volume of every lesion was digitall y measured, then a panel of three examiners independently repeated the meas urement using the ellipsoid and the Cavalieri method in random order. Results-All the lesions were identified by all the readers and the mean vol ume measured by each examiner differed by less than 1.5 mi. The average rea ding time for each scan was 4 minutes for the ellipsoid and 7 minutes for t he Cavalieri method. The average volume of the lesions was 34.2 (SD 35) mi with the digital system, and 38.4 (SD 41) mi and 34.8 (SD 36) ml for the el lipsoid and the Cavalieri readings respectively. The average difference bet ween the applied technique and the digital system was 0.57 (SD 9.99) mi for the Cavalieri direct estimator and 0.20 (SD 15.48) mi for the ellipsoid me thod. The 95% confidence interval for this difference fell between -2.75 an d 3.89 ml for the Cavalieri, and between -4.94 and 5.35 ml for the ellipsoi d method. There were 19 lesions >25 ml; the ellipsoid method identified 16 of them, whereas 17 were classified with the Cavalieri method. When conside ring individual lesions rather than the average volume, discrepancies were detected with both methods. The ellipsoid method was less precise, especial ly when extracerebral lesions were measured. Conclusions-Both pragmatic methods are inferior to computer based reading, which is the choice when accurate volume estimation is necessary. However, if a digital volumetric determination of the lesions using a CT computer is not possible, the two pragmatic methods offer an alternative.