Dae-Won Kang
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Research Subjects
Dae-Won Kang has a total of 10 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Chang-Hyuk Choi
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
1 shared publication - Duk-Hee Lee
Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
1 shared publication - Hee Chan Kim
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Daegu Catholic University Hospital, Daegu, Korea
1 shared publication - Jun-Ho Nam
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, CHA Gumi Medical Center of CHA University, Gumi, Korea
1 shared publication - Jun-Young Kim
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Daegu Catholic University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
1 shared publication - Jung-Suk Do
Department of Orthopedics, Daegu Catholic University Hospital, Daegu, Korea
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 1 September 2020
- Published by Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society in Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
- Vol. 23 (3) , 119-124
Comparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models
Background: This study was performed to compare glenoid version and inclination measured using two-dimensional (2D) images from computed tomography (CT) scans or three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed bone models.Methods: Thirty patients who had undergone conventional CT scans were included. Two orthopedic surgeons measured glenoid version and inclination three times on 2D images from CT scans (2D measurement), and two other orthopedic surgeons performed the same measurements using 3D reconstructed bone models (3D measurement). The 3D-reconstructed bone models were acquired and measured with Mimics and 3-Matics (Materialise).Results: Mean glenoid version and inclination in 2D measurements were –1.705º and 9.08º, respectively, while those in 3D measurements were 2.635º and 7.23º. The intra-observer reliability in 2D measurements was 0.605 and 0.698, respectively, while that in 3D measurements was 0.883 and 0.892. The inter-observer reliability in 2D measurements was 0.456 and 0.374, respectively, while those in 3D measurements was 0.853 and 0.845.Conclusions: The difference between 2D and 3D measurements is not due to differences in image data but to the use of different tools. However, more consistent results were obtained in 3D measurement. Therefore, 3D measurement can be a good alternative for measuring glenoid version and inclination.
- 1 September 2020
- Published by Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society in Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
- Vol. 23 (3) , 119-124
Open AccessComparative study of glenoid version and inclination using two-dimensional images from computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstructed bone models
Background: This study was performed to compare glenoid version and inclination measured using two-dimensional (2D) images from computed tomography (CT) scans or three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed bone models.Methods: Thirty patients who had undergone conventional CT scans were included. Two orthopedic surgeons measured glenoid version and inclination three times on 2D images from CT scans (2D measurement), and two other orthopedic surgeons performed the same measurements using 3D reconstructed bone models (3D measurement). The 3D-reconstructed bone models were acquired and measured with Mimics and 3-Matics (Materialise).Results: Mean glenoid version and inclination in 2D measurements were –1.705º and 9.08º, respectively, while those in 3D measurements were 2.635º and 7.23º. The intra-observer reliability in 2D measurements was 0.605 and 0.698, respectively, while that in 3D measurements was 0.883 and 0.892. The inter-observer reliability in 2D measurements was 0.456 and 0.374, respectively, while those in 3D measurements was 0.853 and 0.845.Conclusions: The difference between 2D and 3D measurements is not due to differences in image data but to the use of different tools. However, more consistent results were obtained in 3D measurement. Therefore, 3D measurement can be a good alternative for measuring glenoid version and inclination.
- Open Access
- 1 January 2020
- Published by XMLink in Journal of Korean Medical Science
- Vol. 35 (29) , e269
IgG Seroprevalence of COVID-19 among Individuals without a History of the Coronavirus Disease Infection in Daegu, Korea
Song SK, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Jun;35(29):e269. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e269
- 1 January 2020
- Published by XMLink in Journal of Korean Medical Science
- Vol. 35 (29) , e269
Open AccessIgG Seroprevalence of COVID-19 among Individuals without a History of the Coronavirus Disease Infection in Daegu, Korea
Song SK, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Jun;35(29):e269. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e269