Validation of phalanx bone three-dimensional surface segmentation from computed tomography images using laser scanning

ObjectiveTo examine the validity of manually defined bony regions of interest from computed tomography (CT) scans.Materials and methodsSegmentation measurements were performed on the coronal reformatted CT images of the three phalanx bones of the index finger from five cadaveric specimens. Two smoothing algorithms (image-based and Laplacian surface-based) were evaluated to determine their ability to represent accurately the anatomic surface. The resulting surfaces were compared with laser surface scans of the corresponding cadaveric specimen.ResultsThe average relative overlap between two tracers was 0.91 for all bones. The overall mean difference between the manual unsmoothed surface and the laser surface scan was 0.20 mm. Both image-based and Laplacian surface-based smoothing were compared; the overall mean difference for image-based smoothing was 0.21 mm and 0.20 mm for Laplacian smoothing.ConclusionsThis study showed that manual segmentation of high-contrast, coronal, reformatted, CT datasets can accurately represent the true surface geometry of bones. Additionally, smoothing techniques did not significantly alter the surface representations. This validation technique should be extended to other bones, image segmentation and spatial filtering techniques.

[1]  V. Spitzer,et al.  The visible human male: a technical report. , 1996, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[2]  Peter Ratiu,et al.  Visible Human 2.0--the next generation. , 2003, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[3]  Michael J. Ackerman,et al.  Toward a Common Validation Methodology for Segmentation and Registration Algorithms , 2000, MICCAI.

[4]  C E Easterly,et al.  Creating a human phantom for the virtual human program. , 2000, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[5]  William M. Wells,et al.  Validation of Image Segmentation and Expert Quality with an Expectation-Maximization Algorithm , 2002, MICCAI.

[6]  V. Spitzer,et al.  The visible human dataset: The anatomical platform for human simulation , 1998, The Anatomical record.

[7]  Nancy C. Andreasen,et al.  Manual and Automated Measurement of the Whole Thalamus and Mediodorsal Nucleus Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2002, NeuroImage.

[8]  K. Zou,et al.  Three validation metrics for automated probabilistic image segmentation of brain tumours , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  William M. Wells,et al.  Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[11]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  An innovative phantom for quantitative and qualitative investigation of advanced x-ray imaging technologies. , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Guido Gerig,et al.  Valmet: A New Validation Tool for Assessing and Improving 3D Object Segmentation , 2001, MICCAI.

[13]  C P Neu,et al.  In vivo kinematic behavior of the radio-capitate joint during wrist flexion-extension and radio-ulnar deviation. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Design and construction of a realistic digital brain phantom , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  N C Andreasen,et al.  Image processing for the study of brain structure and function: problems and programs. , 1992, The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences.

[16]  T. Vogl,et al.  Quantitative assessment of cartilage status in osteoarthritis by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging: technical validation for use in analysis of cartilage volume and further morphologic parameters. , 2004, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[17]  Sang Wook Lee,et al.  Invariant features and the registration of rigid bodies , 1999, Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.99CH36288C).

[18]  Yueh-Yun Chi,et al.  Comparison of human and automatic segmentations of kidneys from CT images. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  Edward Chaney,et al.  Methods for image segmentation should be standardized and calibrated. , 2005, Medical physics.

[20]  Ron Kikinis,et al.  Statistical validation of image segmentation quality based on a spatial overlap index. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[21]  Z A C,et al.  Knee cartilage topography , thickness , and contact areas from MRI : in-vitro calibration and in-vivo measurements , 1999 .

[22]  M. Hull,et al.  A finite element model of the human knee joint for the study of tibio-femoral contact. , 2002, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[23]  F. Eckstein,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of articular cartilage in knee osteoarthritis (OA): morphological assessment. , 2006, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[24]  F Eckstein,et al.  Double echo steady state magnetic resonance imaging of knee articular cartilage at 3 Tesla: a pilot study for the Osteoarthritis Initiative , 2005, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[25]  P. Danielsson Euclidean distance mapping , 1980 .

[26]  Greg Harris,et al.  Structural MR image processing using the BRAINS2 toolbox. , 2002, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.