Version 1
: Received: 1 April 2023 / Approved: 7 April 2023 / Online: 7 April 2023 (03:13:08 CEST)
How to cite:
Beldame, J.; Sacco, R.; Munoz, M.-A.; Masse, M.; Lalevée, M. Assessment of Foot and Ankle Edema With a 3D Portable Scanner. Preprints2023, 2023040103. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202304.0103.v1
Beldame, J.; Sacco, R.; Munoz, M.-A.; Masse, M.; Lalevée, M. Assessment of Foot and Ankle Edema With a 3D Portable Scanner. Preprints 2023, 2023040103. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202304.0103.v1
Beldame, J.; Sacco, R.; Munoz, M.-A.; Masse, M.; Lalevée, M. Assessment of Foot and Ankle Edema With a 3D Portable Scanner. Preprints2023, 2023040103. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202304.0103.v1
APA Style
Beldame, J., Sacco, R., Munoz, M. A., Masse, M., & Lalevée, M. (2023). Assessment of Foot and Ankle Edema With a 3D Portable Scanner. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202304.0103.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Beldame, J., Marion Masse and Matthieu Lalevée. 2023 "Assessment of Foot and Ankle Edema With a 3D Portable Scanner" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202304.0103.v1
Abstract
Background. 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. Methods. Foot volume was measured in 29 healthy volunteers (58 feet, 24 female/5 male) 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. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient, and a Student’s t-test were performed. Results: Mean foot volume was 869.7+/-165.1cm3 (3D scanner) versus 867.9+/-155.4cm3 (water-displacement volumetry) (p <10-5). Concordance of measurements was 0.93, indicative of a high correlation between the two techniques. Volumes were 47.8 cm3 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 cm3). Mean examination time was 4.2 +/-1.7 min (3D optical scanner) versus 11.1 +/-2.9 min (water volumeter) (p<10-4). Conclusion: Ankle/foot volumetric measurements performed using this portable 3D scanner are reliable and fast, and can be used in clinical practice and research.
Keywords
optical scanner; 3D imaging; foot volume; volumetric measurements; water volumeter
Subject
Medicine and Pharmacology, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
