Anatomical evaluation of CT-MRI combined femoral model

BackgroundBoth CT and MRI are complementary to each other in that CT can produce a distinct contour of bones, and MRI can show the shape of both ligaments and bones. It will be ideal to build a CT-MRI combined model to take advantage of complementary information of each modality. This study evaluated the accuracy of the combined femoral model in terms of anatomical inspection.MethodsSix normal porcine femora (180 ± 10 days, 3 lefts and 3 rights) with ball markers were scanned by CT and MRI. The 3D/3D registration was performed by two methods, i.e. the landmark-based 3 points-to-3 points and the surface matching using the iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm. The matching accuracy of the combined model was evaluated with statistical global deviation and locally measure anatomical contour-based deviation. Statistical analysis to assess any significant difference between accuracies of those two methods was performed using univariate repeated measures ANOVA with the Turkey post hoc test.ResultsThis study revealed that the local 2D contour-based measurement of matching deviation was 0.5 ± 0.3 mm in the femoral condyle, and in the middle femoral shaft. The global 3D contour matching deviation of the landmark-based matching was 1.1 ± 0.3 mm, but local 2D contour deviation through anatomical inspection was much larger as much as 3.0 ± 1.8 mm.ConclusionEven with human-factor derived errors accumulated from segmentation of MRI images, and limited image quality, the matching accuracy of CT-&-MRI combined 3D models was 0.5 ± 0.3 mm in terms of local anatomical inspection.

[1]  D. Dennis,et al.  In vivo determination of posterior femoral rollback for subjects having a NexGen posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. , 2002, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[2]  Christian Roux,et al.  BoneMorphing versus freehand localization of anatomical landmarks: Consequences for the reproducibility of implant positioning in total knee arthroplasty , 2005, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[3]  Zhenghong Lee,et al.  Multimodal and three-dimensional imaging of prostate cancer. , 2005, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[4]  Gang Wang,et al.  Registration and Integration of Multiple Object Views for 3D Model Construction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[5]  Tom W J Scheenen,et al.  IMRT boost dose planning on dominant intraprostatic lesions: gold marker-based three-dimensional fusion of CT with dynamic contrast-enhanced and 1H-spectroscopic MRI. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  Kathleen Denis,et al.  Registration of the tibia in robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty using surface matching , 2003, CARS.

[7]  B. Geiger,et al.  Study of the variations in length of the anterior cruciate ligament during flexion of the knee: use of a 3D model reconstructed from MRI sections , 2005, Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy.

[8]  H. Damasio,et al.  IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence: Special Issue on Perceptual Organization in Computer Vision , 1998 .

[9]  Zhi-pei Liang,et al.  Introduction to biomedical imaging , 2008 .

[10]  Ron Kikinis,et al.  Non-rigid registration of a 3D ultrasound and a MR image data set of the female pelvic floor using a biomechanical model , 2005, Biomedical engineering online.

[11]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  A new method to compare planned and achieved position of an orthopaedic implant , 2003, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[12]  Yaorong Ge,et al.  Surface-based 3D image registration using the iterative closest-point algorithm with a closest-point transform , 1996, Medical Imaging.

[13]  Martin Styner,et al.  Evaluation of 3D Correspondence Methods for Model Building , 2003, IPMI.

[14]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  Evaluation of achievable registration accuracy of the femur during minimally invasive total hip replacement , 2005, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[15]  S. Cherry,et al.  Combining anatomy and function: the path to true image fusion , 2001, European Radiology.

[16]  Ming-Shi Wang,et al.  Three-dimensional reconstruction and fusion for multi-modality spinal images. , 2004, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[17]  Paul J. Besl,et al.  A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes , 1992, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[18]  Douglas C. Moore,et al.  Advances in quantitative in vivo imaging , 2003 .

[19]  Young-Hoo Kim,et al.  Range of motion of standard and high-flexion posterior stabilized total knee prostheses. A prospective, randomized study. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[20]  James S. Duncan,et al.  A Robust Point Matching Algorithm for Autoradiograph Alignment , 1996, VBC.

[21]  N. Sugano.  Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery , 2003, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[22]  P. Roach,et al.  Combining anatomy and function: the future of medical imaging , 2005, Internal medicine journal.

[23]  N. A. Mouravliansky,et al.  A comparative study of surface- and volume-based techniques for the automatic registration between CT and SPECT brain images. , 2002, Medical physics.

[24]  David L Wilson,et al.  Automatic registration of MR and SPECT images for treatment planning in prostate cancer. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[25]  Randy E. Ellis,et al.  Robust registration for computer-integrated orthopedic surgery: Laboratory validation and clinical experience , 2003, Medical Image Anal..

[26]  H. Michel,et al.  A Study of 3d Kinematics of the Knee Joint 1 , 2007 .