Skeletal 3-D CT: advantages of volume rendering over surface rendering

Abstract Both surface rendering and volume rendering have been extensively applied to CT data for 3-D visualization of skeletal pathology. This review illustrates potential limitations of each technique by directly comparing 3-D images of bone pathology created using volume rendering and surface rendering. Surface renderings show gross 3-D relationships most effectively, but suffer from more stairstep artifacts and fail to effectively display lesions hidden behind overlying bone or located beneath the bone cortex. Volume-rendering algorithms effectively show subcortical lesions, minimally displaced fractures, and hidden areas of interest with few artifacts. Volume algorithms show 3-D relationships with varying degrees of success depending on the degree of surface shading and opacity. While surface rendering creates more three-dimensionally realistic images of the bone surface, it may be of limited clinical utility due to numerous artifacts and the inability to show subcortical pathology. Volume rendering is a flexible 3-D technique that effectively displays a variety of skeletal pathology with few artifacts.

[1]  M W Vannier,et al.  Three dimensional CT reconstruction images for craniofacial surgical planning and evaluation. , 1984, Radiology.

[2]  Brian Cabral,et al.  Accelerated volume rendering and tomographic reconstruction using texture mapping hardware , 1994, VVS '94.

[3]  William E. Lorensen,et al.  Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm , 1987, SIGGRAPH.

[4]  M W Vannier,et al.  Craniosynostosis: diagnostic value of three-dimensional CT reconstruction. , 1989, Radiology.

[5]  M. Vannier,et al.  Spiral (helical) CT. , 1993, Radiology.

[6]  Pat Hanrahan,et al.  Volume Rendering , 2020, Definitions.

[7]  Elliot K. Fishman,et al.  Volumetric rendering of computed tomography data: principles and techniques , 1990, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[8]  D Magid,et al.  Three dimensional imaging in orthopedics: state of the art 1988. , 1988, Orthopedics.

[9]  W. Kalender,et al.  Spiral volumetric CT with single-breath-hold technique, continuous transport, and continuous scanner rotation. , 1990, Radiology.

[10]  Marc Levoy,et al.  Display of surfaces from volume data , 1988, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[11]  D Magid,et al.  Acetabular fractures: optimal imaging. , 1987, Radiology.

[12]  E. Fishman,et al.  Adult ankle fractures: comparison of plain films and interactive two- and three-dimensional CT scans. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  R. A. Drebin,et al.  Fidelity of Three‐dimensional CT Imaging for Detecting Fracture Gaps , 1989, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[14]  E. Fishman,et al.  Complex shoulder trauma: three-dimensional CT imaging. , 1988, Orthopedics.

[15]  D D Robertson,et al.  Comparison of helical and serial CT with regard to three-dimensional imaging of musculoskeletal anatomy. , 1992, Radiology.