Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A statistical shape model of the human second cervical vertebra

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Statistical shape and appearance models play an important role in reducing the segmentation processing time of a vertebra and in improving results for 3D model development. Here, we describe the different steps in generating a statistical shape model (SSM) of the second cervical vertebra (C2) and provide the shape model for general use by the scientific community. The main difficulties in its construction are the morphological complexity of the C2 and its variability in the population.

Methods

The input dataset is composed of manually segmented anonymized patient computerized tomography (CT) scans. The alignment of the different datasets is done with the procrustes alignment on surface models, and then, the registration is cast as a model-fitting problem using a Gaussian process. A principal component analysis (PCA)-based model is generated which includes the variability of the C2.

Results

The SSM was generated using 92 CT scans. The resulting SSM was evaluated for specificity, compactness and generalization ability. The SSM of the C2 is freely available to the scientific community in Slicer (an open source software for image analysis and scientific visualization) with a module created to visualize the SSM using Statismo, a framework for statistical shape modeling.

Conclusion

The SSM of the vertebra allows the shape variability of the C2 to be represented. Moreover, the SSM will enable semi-automatic segmentation and 3D model generation of the vertebra, which would greatly benefit surgery planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ishikawa Y, Kanemura T, Yoshida G, Ito Z, Muramoto A, Ohno S (2010) Clinical accuracy of three-dimensional fluoroscopy-based computer-assisted cervical pedicle screw placement: a retrospective comparative study of conventional versus computer-assisted cervical pedicle screw placement. J Neurosurg Spine 13(5):606–611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ito H, Neo M, Yoshida M, Fujibayashi S, Yoshitomi H, Nakamura T (2007) Efficacy of computer-assisted pedicle screw insertion for cervical instability in RA patients. Rheumatol Int 27(6):567–574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kamimura M, Ebara S, Itoh H, Tateiwa Y, Kinoshita T, Takaoka K (2000) Cervical pedicle screw insertion: assessment of safety and accuracy with computer-assisted image guidance. J Spinal Disord 13(3):218–224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ludwig SC, Kramer DL, Balderston RA, Vaccaro AR, Foley KF, Albert TJ (2000) Placement of pedicle screws in the human cadaveric cervical spine: comparative accuracy of three techniques. Spine 25(13):1655–1667

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rampersaud YR, Pik JHT, Salonen D, Farooq S (2005) Clinical accuracy of fluoroscopic computer-assisted pedicle screw fixation: a CT analysis. Spine 30(7):E183–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Richter M, Cakir B, Schmidt R (2005) Cervical pedicle screws: conventional versus computer-assisted placement of cannulated screws. Spine 30(20):2280–2287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Richter M, Mattes T, Cakir B (2004) Computer-assisted posterior instrumentation of the cervical and cervico-thoracic spine. Eur Spine J 13(1):50–59

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weidner A, Wähler M, Chiu ST, Ullrich CG (2000) Modification of c1–c2 transarticular screw fixation by image-guided surgery. Spine 25(20):2668–2673, discussion 2674

  9. Panjabi MM, Shin EK, Chen NC, Wang JL (2000) Internal morphology of human cervical pedicles. Spine 25(10):1197–1205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karaikovic EE, Daubs MD, Madsen RW, Gaines JRW (1997) Morphologic characteristics of human cervical pedicles. Spine 22(5):493–500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Karaikovic EE, Yingsakmongkol W, Gaines JRW (2001) Accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement using the funnel technique. Spine 26(22):2456–2462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Neo M, Fujibayashi S, Miyata M, Takemoto M, Nakamura T (2008) Vertebral artery injury during cervical spine surgery: a survey of more than 5600 operations. Spine 33(7):779–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Neo M, Sakamoto T, Fujibayashi S, Nakamura T (2005) The clinical risk of vertebral artery injury from cervical pedicle screws inserted in degenerative vertebrae. Spine 30(24):2800–2805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Laville C, Benazet JP (1992) Treatment of lower cervical spinal injuries—c3 to c7. Spine 17(10 Suppl):S442–446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kosmopoulos V, Schizas C (2007) Pedicle screw placement accuracy: a meta-analysis. Spine 32(3):E111–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tian NF, Xu HZ (2009) Image-guided pedicle screw insertion accuracy: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop 33(4):895–903

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Verma R, Krishan S, Haendlmayer K, Mohsen A (2010) Functional outcome of computer-assisted spinal pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies including 5,992 pedicle screws. Eur Spine J 19(3):370–375

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kostrzewski S, Duff JM, Baur C, Olszewski M (2012) Robotic system for cervical spine surgery. Int J Med Robot 8(2):184–190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin JC, Pujol S, Bauer C, Jennings D, Fennessy F, Sonka M, Buatti J, Aylward S, Miller JV, Pieper S, Kikinis R (2012) 3D slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn Reson Imaging 30(9):1323–1341

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 3D slicer. www.slicer.org/

  21. Sharma N, Aggarwal LM (2010) Automated medical image segmentation techniques. J Med Phys 35(1):3–14

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Aslan M, Farag A, Arnold B, Xiang P (2011) Segmentation of vertebrae using level sets with expectation maximization algorithm. In: 2011 IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging: from nano to macro, pp 2010–2013

  23. Aslan M, Ali A, Farag A, Rara H, Arnold B, Xiang P (2010) 3d vertebral body segmentation using shape based graph cuts. In: 2010 20th international conference on pattern recognition (ICPR), pp 3951–3954

  24. Cootes TF, Taylor CJ, Cooper DH, Graham J (1995) Active shape models—their training and application. Comput Vis Image Underst 61(1):38–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sarkalkan N, Weinans H, Zadpoor AA (2014) Statistical shape and appearance models of bones. Bone 60:129–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Heimann T, Meinzer HP (2009) Statistical shape models for 3d medical image segmentation: a review. Med Image Anal 13(4):543–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zheng G, Nolte LP, Ferguson SJ (2011) Scaled, patient-specific 3D vertebral model reconstruction based on 2D lateral fluoroscopy. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 6(3):351–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Styner M, Oguz I, Xu S, Brechbuhler C, Pantazis D, Levitt JJ, Shenton ME, Gerig G (2006) Framework for the statistical shape analysis of brain structures using SPHARM-PDM. Insight J 1071:242–250

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mirzaalian H, Wels M, Heimann T, Kelm B, Suehling M (2013) Fast and robust 3d vertebra segmentation using statistical shape models. In: 2013 35th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), pp 3379–3382

  30. Klinder T, Ostermann J, Ehm M, Franz A, Kneser R, Lorenz C (2009) Automated model-based vertebra detection, identification, and segmentation in CT images. Med Image Anal 13(3):471–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Heitz G, Rohlfing T, Maurer CR Jr (2005) Statistical shape model generation using nonrigid deformation of a template mesh, pp 1411–1421

  32. Rasoulian A, Rohling R, Abolmaesumi P (2012) Group-wise registration of point sets for statistical shape models. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 31(11):2025–2034

  33. Madawi AA, Casey AT, Solanki GA, Tuite G, Veres R, Crockard HA (1997) Radiological and anatomical evaluation of the atlantoaxial transarticular screw fixation technique. J Neurosurg 86(6):961–968

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lüthi M, Jud C, Vetter T (2011) Using landmarks as a deformation prior for hybrid image registration. In: Proceedings of the 33rd international conference on pattern recognition, Berlin, Heidelberg, DAGM’11, pp 196–205

  35. Opfer R (2006) Multiscale kernels. Adv Comput Math 25(4):357–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lüthi M, Jud C, Vetter T (2013) A unified approach to shape model fitting and non-rigid registration. In: Machine learning in medical imaging, no. 8184 in lecture notes in computer science, pp 66–73

  37. Styner MA, Rajamani KT, Nolte LP, Zsemlye G, Székely G, Taylor CJ, Davies RH (2003) Evaluation of 3d correspondence methods for model building. In: Taylor C, Noble JA (eds) Information processing in medical imaging, no. 2732 in lecture notes in computer science, pp 63–75

  38. Kistler M, Bonaretti S, Pfahrer M, Niklaus R, Buchler P (2013) The virtual skeleton database: An open access repository for biomedical research and collaboration. J Med Internet Res 15(11):e245

  39. Umeyama S (1991) Least-squares estimation of transformation parameters between two point patterns. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 13(4):376–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI (2006) Gaussian processes for machine learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  41. Danielsson PE (1980) Euclidean distance mapping. Comput Graph Image Process 14(3):227–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. The insight segmentation and registration toolkit. www.itk.org

  43. Lüthi M, Albrecht T, Gass T, Goksel O, Kistler M, Bousleiman H, Reyes M, Buechler P, Cattin PC, Vetter T (2012) Statismo—a framework for PCA based statistical models. Insight J 1:1–18

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) supported this study. The authors thank KB Medical for their help and support with the project.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Instant-Lab, Rue de la Maladière 71b, 2000, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Marine Clogenson, Charles Baur & Simon Henein

  2. Neurochirurgie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois et Université de Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland

    John M. Duff & Marc Levivier

  3. Service de radiodiagnostic et radiologie interventionnelle, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois et Université de Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Reto Meuli

  4. Computer Science Department, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 16, 4056, Basel, Switzerland

    Marcel Luethi

Authors
  1. Marine Clogenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John M. Duff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcel Luethi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marc Levivier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Reto Meuli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Charles Baur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Simon Henein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marine Clogenson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clogenson, M., Duff, J.M., Luethi, M. et al. A statistical shape model of the human second cervical vertebra. Int J CARS 10, 1097–1107 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1121-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1121-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation