Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 38, Issue 7, pp 2464–2472 | Cite as

Binary Segmentation Masks Can Improve Intrasubject Registration Accuracy of Bone Structures in CT Images

  • Oleg Museyko
  • Fabian Eisa
  • Andreas Hess
  • Georg Schett
  • Willi A. Kalender
  • Klaus Engelke
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Registration of bone structures is a common problem in medical research as well as in clinical applications. Intrasubject rigid 3D monomodality registration of segmented bone structures of CT images and multimodality registration of μMR and segmented μCT bone images were performed with the multiresolution intensity-based technique implemented in ITK. The registration results for binary volumes of interest (VOI) masks and for segmented gray value VOIs were compared. To determine the registration quality, in the monomodality case the sum of squared difference, the sum of absolute differences, and the normalized symmetric difference of binary masks and in the multimodality case Mattes mutual information were applied. The use of binary VOI masks was significantly superior to the use of gray value VOIs.

Keywords

Rigid registration μCT μMR Bone Binary mask 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge support by the Interdisciplinary Center of Clinical Research (IZKF) of the University of Erlangen (Core Unit Z2), and the German Research Foundation DFG (Forschergruppe 661, TP7). Parts of the study have been presented at Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin (BVM) 2009, Heidelberg, Germany.

References

  1. 1.
    Batiste, D. L., et al. High-resolution MRI and micro-CT in an ex vivo rabbit anterior cruciate ligament transection model of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 12(8):614–626, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blumenfeld, J., et al. Automatic prospective registration of high-resolution trabecular bone images of the tibia. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 35(11):1924–1931, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boyd, S. K., et al. Evaluation of three-dimensional image registration methodologies for in vivo micro-computed tomography. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 34(10):1587–1599, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Bruin, D. M., et al. In vivo three-dimensional imaging of neovascular age-related macular degeneration using optical frequency domain imaging at 1050 nm. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 49(10):4545–4552, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dekker, N., L. S. Ploeger, and M. van Herk. Evaluation of cost functions for gray value matching of two-dimensional images in radiotherapy. Med. Phys. 30(5):778–784, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Droske, M., and M. Rumpf. Multiscale joint segmentation and registration of image morphology. IEEE Trans. Pattern. Anal. Mach. Intell. 29(12):2181–2194, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engelke, K., et al. Reanalysis precision of 3D quantitative computed tomography (QCT) of the spine. Bone 44(4):566–572, 2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenspan, M., L. I. Wang, and R. Ellis. Validation and improved registration of bone segmentation using contour coherency. Conf Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 1:244–247, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hajnal, J. V., D. L. Hill, and D. J. Hawkes (eds.). Medical image analysis. In: Biomedical Engineering, edited by M. Neuman. CRC Press Inc., 2001, 392 p.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hardisty, M., et al. Quantitative characterization of metastatic disease in the spine. Part I. Semiautomated segmentation using atlas-based deformable registration and the level set method. Med. Phys. 34(8):3127–3134, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibanez, L., et al. The ITK Software Guide. Clifton Park, NY: Kitware Inc., 787 pp., 2005. http://www.itk.org/ItkSoftwareGuide.pdf.
  12. 12.
    Kang, Y., K. Engelke, and W. A. Kalender. A new accurate and precise 3-D segmentation method for skeletal structures in volumetric CT data. IEEE Trans. Med Imaging 22(5):586–598, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, W., et al. Automated registration of hip and spine for longitudinal QCT studies: integration with 3D densitometric and structural analysis. Bone 38(2):273–279, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Macneil, J. A. and S. K. Boyd. Improved reproducibility of high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography for measurement of bone quality. Med. Eng. Phys. 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mahfouz, M. R., et al. Effect of segmentation errors on 3D-to-2D registration of implant models in X-ray images. J. Biomech. 38(2):229–239, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mastmeyer, A., et al. A hierarchical 3D segmentation method and the definition of vertebral body coordinate systems for QCT of the lumbar spine. Med. Image Anal. 10(4):560–577, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nikou, C., F. Heitz, and J.-P. Armspach. Robust voxel similarity metrics for the registration of dissimilar single and multimodal images. Pattern Recogn. 32:18, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Penney, G. P., et al. A comparison of similarity measures for use in 2-D–3-D medical image registration. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 17(4):586–595, 1998.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rajapakse, C. S., J. F. Magland, and F. W. Wehrli. Fast prospective registration of in vivo MR images of trabecular bone microstructure in longitudinal studies. Magn. Reson. Med. 59(5):1120–1126, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stammberger, T., et al. Elastic registration of 3D cartilage surfaces from MR image data for detecting local changes in cartilage thickness. Magn. Reson. Med. 44(4):592–601, 2000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Waarsing, J. H., et al. Detecting and tracking local changes in the tibiae of individual rats: a novel method to analyse longitudinal in vivo micro-CT data. Bone 34(1):163–169, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yezzi, A., L. Zollei, and T. Kapur. A variational framework for integrating segmentation and registration through active contours. Med. Image Anal. 7(2):171–185, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oleg Museyko
    • 1
  • Fabian Eisa
    • 1
  • Andreas Hess
    • 2
  • Georg Schett
    • 3
  • Willi A. Kalender
    • 1
  • Klaus Engelke
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Medical PhysicsUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Pharmacology and ToxicologyUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Internal Medicine 3University of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations