Impact of the selection of photographic devices on facialprofilometry: a cross-sectional observational study withartificial intelligence analysis for plastic surgery
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Preoperative assessment in facial plastic surgery has evolved significantly in recent decades, especially with the use of two-dimensional photography. This tool is essential for documenting facial deformities, planning surgical interventions such as rhinoplasty, and communicating expectations to patients. However, selecting the appropriate photographic device is critical for obtaining accurate and reproducible results. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using different image capture devices, including high-resolution digital cameras and smartphones. Frontal photographs of a patient were taken with each device, maintaining standardized conditions of lighting and distance. Artificial intelligence techniques were employed for image analysis and estimation of relevant measures for rhinoplasty. Results: The results showed that the precision and reproducibility of the method varied depending on the photographic device used. Significant differences were observed in the average errors of the measurements obtained, especially between frontal and lateral images. Smartphones demonstrated lower errors overall. Conclusion: Selecting the appropriate photographic device is essential in the preoperative assessment of rhinoplasty. Although smartphones may offer a viable alternative to high-resolution digital cameras, it is critical to implement standardized procedures for image acquisition and use artificial intelligence algorithms to ensure accurate and reproducible results. The integration of these technologies has the potential to significantly improve aesthetic and functional outcomes in facial plastic surgery.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Este artículo es publicado por la Revista Acta de Otorrinolaringología & Cirugía de Cabeza y Cuello.
Este es un artículo de acceso abierto, distribuido bajo los términos de la LicenciaCreativeCommons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/), que permite el uso no comercial, distribución y reproducción en cualquier medio, siempre que la obra original sea debidamente citada.
eISSN: 2539-0856
ISSN: 0120-8411
How to Cite
References
1. Pham AM, Tollefson TT. Objective Facial Photograph Analysis Using Imaging Software. Facial Plast Surg Clin N Am. 2010;18(2):341-349. doi: 10.1016/j.fsc.2010.01.010
2. Tasman AJ. Rhinoplasty Photography: Lighting from Above Improves Visualization of Deviations and Irregularities. Facial Plast Surg Aest
3. Rogers BO. The first pre- and post-operative photographs of plastic and reconstructive surgery: Contributions of Gurdon Buck (1807–1877). Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1991;15(1):19-33. doi: 10.1007/BF02273830
4. Lisiecki JL, Gilman RH. Traditional Anthropometrics versus Computerized Photograph Manipulation in Rhinoplasty Planning. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022;46(1):338-341. doi: 10.1007/s00266-021-02563-2
5. Papel ID, editor. Foreword. En: Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2009.
6. Sommer DD, Mendelsohn M. Pitfalls of Nonstandardized Photography in Facial Plastic Surgery Patients: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(1):10-14. doi: 10.1097/01. prs.0000127791.31526.e2
7. Galdino GM, DaSilva And D, Gunter JP. Digital photography for rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109(4):1421-1434. doi: 10.1097/00006534-200204010-00035
8. Mattison RC. Facial video image processing: standard facial image capturing, software modification, development of a surgical plan, and comparison of presurgical and postsurgical results. Ann Plast Surg. 1992;29(5):385-9. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199211000-00001
9. Photography for the aesthetic surgeon. En: Essentials of Aesthetic Surgery. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2018. p. 21-32. Cakir B, Saban Y, Daniel R, Palhazi P. Preservation Rhinoplasty. The PMFA Journal. 2020;7(2):1-2.
10. Cakir B, Saban Y, Daniel R, Palhazi P. Preservation Rhinoplasty. The PMFA Journal. 2020;7(2):1-2.
11. Chisholm E, Jallali N. Rhinoplasty and Septorhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation. Ear Nose Throat J. 2012;91(3):E10-E14. doi: 10.1177/014556131209100315
12. Wolfe EM, Najera-Sweeney G, Berman ZP, et al. Establishing Photographic Standards for Facial Transplantation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Plast Reconstr Surg - Glob Open. 2020;8(5):e2834. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002834
13. Weissler JM, Stern CS, Schreiber JE, Amirlak B, Tepper OM. The Evolution of Photography and Three-Dimensional Imaging in Plastic Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(3):761-769. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003146
14. Tollefson TT, Sykes JM. Computer Imaging Software for Profile Photograph Analysis. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;9(2):113- 119. doi: 10.1001/archfaci.9.2.113
15. Goodyear K, Saffari PS, Esfandiari M, Baugh S, Rootman DB, Karlin JN. Estimating apparent age using artificial intelligence: Quantifying the effect of blepharoplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023;85:336-343. doi: 10.1016/j. bjps.2023.07.017
16. Stroomer, Vuyk, Wielinga. The effects of computer simulated facial plastic surgery on social perception by others. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1998;23(2):141-147. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2273.1998.00114.x