Comparative Assessment of CT and MRI in Orbital Measurement: Accuracy, Agreement, and Reliability

This study aimed to compare orbital linear dimensions and volumes obtained from computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in healthy adults using harmonized anatomic landmarks, and to assess inter-modality agreement, predictive accuracy, and inter-observer reliability. This retrospective study included 40 adults (80 orbits) who underwent both cranial CT and MRI (2017–2025) without orbital trauma. Orbital boundaries were defined by standardized bony landmarks. Anteroposterior (AP), transverse (TR), and craniocaudal (CC) diameters were measured on CT and T2-weighted MRI, and orbital volume was calculated using the ellipsoid formula (0.52 × AP × TR × CC). Paired statistical tests were used to compare modalities; agreement was assessed with correlations (Pearson’s r, Spearman’s ρ), predictive accuracy with regression (R2), and inter-observer reliability with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). AP diameters showed no significant difference between modalities (R1 p = 0.595; R2 p = 0.348). TR, CC, and volumes were larger on MRI (all p ≤ 0.003). Correlations were excellent for R1 (all r ≥ 0.967; p < 0.001) but weaker for R2, especially TR (ρ = 0.219; p = 0.051). Bland–Altman plots showed minimal bias for R1 but wider limits for R2. Regression confirmed excellent MRI-to-CT prediction for R1 (R2 up to 0.994) but poor for R2 (TR R2 = 0.008). Inter-observer reliability was parameter-dependent: CC showed the best agreement (CT ICC = 0.651; MRI ICC = 0.724), TR the weakest, and volumes moderate-to-good. MRI closely approximates CT for AP diameters and provides acceptable estimates for TR, CC, and volume under standardized conditions. However, MRI yields slightly higher values and shows greater observer sensitivity, particularly for TR. CT remains the reference for orbital morphometry, whereas MRI is a promising radiation-free adjunct when combined with harmonized protocols and (semi-)automated segmentation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bratislavské lekárske listy/Bratislava medical journal
Published
2025-12-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44411-025-00439-4
Primary Topic
Facial Trauma and Fracture Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative Assessment of CT and MRI in Orbital Measurement: Accuracy, Agreement, and Reliability

Yasemin Fatma Çetinkaya, Ali Can Korkmaz, Mehmet Ali Güner, Ayhan Cömert et al.
Bratislavské lekárske listy/Bratislava medical journal
Facial Trauma and Fracture Management
article

Comparative Assessment of CT and MRI in Orbital Measurement: Accuracy, Agreement, and Reliability

Yasemin Fatma Çetinkaya, Ali Can Korkmaz, Mehmet Ali Güner, Ayhan Cömert, Necati Salman, Banu Topçu Çakır, Tugba Cavis
article en

Abstract

This study aimed to compare orbital linear dimensions and volumes obtained from computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in healthy adults using harmonized anatomic landmarks, and to assess inter-modality agreement, predictive accuracy, and inter-observer reliability. This retrospective study included 40 adults (80 orbits) who underwent both cranial CT and MRI (2017–2025) without orbital trauma. Orbital boundaries were defined by standardized bony landmarks. Anteroposterior (AP), transverse (TR), and craniocaudal (CC) diameters were measured on CT and T2-weighted MRI, and orbital volume was calculated using the ellipsoid formula (0.52 × AP × TR × CC). Paired statistical tests were used to compare modalities; agreement was assessed with correlations (Pearson’s r, Spearman’s ρ), predictive accuracy with regression (R2), and inter-observer reliability with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). AP diameters showed no significant difference between modalities (R1 p = 0.595; R2 p = 0.348). TR, CC, and volumes were larger on MRI (all p ≤ 0.003). Correlations were excellent for R1 (all r ≥ 0.967; p < 0.001) but weaker for R2, especially TR (ρ = 0.219; p = 0.051). Bland–Altman plots showed minimal bias for R1 but wider limits for R2. Regression confirmed excellent MRI-to-CT prediction for R1 (R2 up to 0.994) but poor for R2 (TR R2 = 0.008). Inter-observer reliability was parameter-dependent: CC showed the best agreement (CT ICC = 0.651; MRI ICC = 0.724), TR the weakest, and volumes moderate-to-good. MRI closely approximates CT for AP diameters and provides acceptable estimates for TR, CC, and volume under standardized conditions. However, MRI yields slightly higher values and shows greater observer sensitivity, particularly for TR. CT remains the reference for orbital morphometry, whereas MRI is a promising radiation-free adjunct when combined with harmonized protocols and (semi-)automated segmentation.

Bratislavské lekárske listy/Bratislava medical journalVol. 127(1)
Ankara University (TR), University of Health Science (KH), Gülhane Askerî Tıp Akademisi (TR), Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi (TR), University of Health Sciences Antigua (AG)
Openalex Percentile: Top 42%
Facial Trauma and Fracture Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.