Advertisement

Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 46, Issue 11, pp 1756–1767 | Cite as

Method for Segmentation of Knee Articular Cartilages Based on Contrast-Enhanced CT Images

  • Katariina A. H. Myller
  • Juuso T. J. Honkanen
  • Jukka S. Jurvelin
  • Simo Saarakkala
  • Juha Töyräs
  • Sami P. Väänänen
Article

Abstract

Segmentation of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) images enables quantitative evaluation of morphology of articular cartilage as well as the significance of the lesions. Unfortunately, automatic segmentation methods for CECT images are currently lacking. Here, we introduce a semiautomated technique to segment articular cartilage from in vivo CECT images of human knee. The segmented cartilage geometries of nine knee joints, imaged using a clinical CT-scanner with an intra-articular contrast agent, were compared with manual segmentations from CT and magnetic resonance (MR) images. The Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) between semiautomatic and manual CT segmentations were 0.79–0.83 and sensitivity and specificity values were also high (0.76–0.86). When comparing semiautomatic and manual CT segmentations, mean cartilage thicknesses agreed well (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.85–0.93); the difference in thickness (mean ± SD) was 0.27 ± 0.03 mm. Differences in DSC, when MR segmentations were compared with manual and semiautomated CT segmentations, were statistically insignificant. Similarly, differences in volume were not statistically significant between manual and semiautomatic CT segmentations. Semiautomation decreased the segmentation time from 450 ± 190 to 42 ± 10 min per joint. The results reveal that the proposed technique is fast and reliable for segmentation of cartilage. Importantly, this is the first study presenting semiautomated segmentation of cartilage from CECT images of human knee joint with minimal user interaction.

Keywords

Automation Contrast agent Knee joint Musculoskeletal Imaging 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Research Committee of the Kuopio University Hospital Catchment Area for the State Research Funding (Projects 5041746, 5041757, and 5203101). Study is also supported by Doctoral Program in Science, Technology and Computing (SCITECO, University of Eastern Finland), Finnish Cultural Foundation, and Academy of Finland (Projects 269315 and 307932).

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10439_2018_2081_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1481 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bansal, P. N., N. S. Joshi, V. Entezari, B. C. Malone, R. C. Stewart, B. D. Snyder, and M. W. Grinstaff. Cationic contrast agents improve quantification of glycosaminoglycan (GAG) content by contrast enhanced CT imaging of cartilage. J. Orthop. Res. 29:704–709, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bookstein, F. L. Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 11:567–585, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buckwalter, J. A., J. L. Marsh, T. Brown, A. Amendola, and J. A. Martin. Articular cartilage injury. In: Principles of Tissue Engineering, edited by R. Lanza, R. Langer, and J. P. Vacanti. Elsevier, 2014, pp. 1253–1266.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burr, D. B., and M. A. Gallant. Bone remodelling in osteoarthritis. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 8:665–673, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chu, C., J. Bai, X. Wu, and G. Zheng. MASCG: Multi-Atlas Segmentation Constrained Graph method for accurate segmentation of hip CT images. Med. Image Anal. 26:173–184, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chu, C., C. Chen, L. Liu, and G. Zheng. FACTS: fully automatic CT segmentation of a hip joint. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 43:1247–1259, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Favre, J., S. F. Scanlan, J. C. Erhart-Hledik, K. Blazek, and T. P. Andriacchi. Patterns of femoral cartilage thickness are different in asymptomatic and osteoarthritic knees and can be used to detect disease-related differences between samples. J. Biomech. Eng. 135:101002, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Favre, J., J. C. Erhart-Hledik, K. Blazek, B. Fasel, G. E. Gold, and T. P. Andriacchi. Anatomically-standardized maps reveal distinct patterns of cartilage thickness with increasing severity of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. J. Orthop. Res. 35:2442–2451, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Folkesson, J., E. B. Dam, O. F. Olsen, P. C. Pettersen, and C. Christiansen. Segmenting articular cartilage automatically using a voxel classification approach. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 26:106–115, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fripp, J., S. Crozier, S. K. Warfield, and S. Ourselin. Automatic segmentation of articular cartilage in magnetic resonance images of the knee. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 29:55–64, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldring, S. R., and M. B. Goldring. Changes in the osteochondral unit during osteoarthritis: structure, function and cartilage–bone crosstalk. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 12:632–644, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guermazi, A., D. Hayashi, F. W. Roemer, J. Niu, E. K. Quinn, M. D. Crema, M. C. Nevitt, J. Torner, C. E. Lewis, and D. T. Felson. Partial- and full-thickness focal cartilage defects equally contribute to development of new cartilage damage in knee osteoarthritis—the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 69:560–564, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kladny, B., P. Martus, K.-H. Schiwy-Bochat, G. Weseloh, and B. Swoboda. Measurement of cartilage thickness in the human knee-joint by magnetic resonance imaging using a three-dimensional gradient-echo sequence. Int. Orthop. 23:264–267, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kokkonen, H. T., J. Mäkelä, K. A. M. Kulmala, L. Rieppo, J. S. Jurvelin, V. Tiitu, H. M. Karjalainen, R. K. Korhonen, V. Kovanen, and J. Töyräs. Computed tomography detects changes in contrast agent diffusion after collagen cross-linking typical to natural aging of articular cartilage. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 19:1190–1198, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kokkonen, H. T., J. Suomalainen, A. Joukainen, H. Kröger, J. Sirola, J. Jurvelin, J. Salo, and J. Töyräs. In vivo diagnostics of human knee cartilage lesions using delayed CBCT arthrography. J. Orthop. Res. 32:403–412, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kotlarz, H., C. L. Gunnarsson, H. Fang, and J. A. Rizzo. Insurer and out-of-pocket costs of osteoarthritis in the US: evidence from national survey data. Arthritis Rheumatol. 60:3546–3553, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kroon, D. J. Finite Iterative Closest Point. Natick: Mathworks, 2009.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kulmala, K. A. M., H. M. Karjalainen, H. T. Kokkonen, V. Tiitu, V. Kovanen, M. J. Lammi, J. S. Jurvelin, R. K. Korhonen, and J. Töyräs. Diffusion of ionic and non-ionic contrast agents in articular cartilage with increased cross-linking-contribution of steric and electrostatic effects. Med. Eng. Phys. 35:1415–1420, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lakin, B. A., H. Patel, C. Holland, J. D. Freedman, J. S. Shelofsky, B. D. Snyder, K. S. Stok, and M. W. Grinstaff. Contrast-enhanced CT using a cationic contrast agent enables non-destructive assessment of the biochemical and biomechanical properties of mouse tibial plateau cartilage. J. Orthop. Res. 34:1130–1138, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lakin, B. A., B. D. Snyder, and M. W. Grinstaff. Assessing cartilage biomechanical properties: techniques for evaluating the functional performance of cartilage in health and disease. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 19:27–55, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li, H., R. W. Sumner, and M. Pauly. Global correspondence optimization for non-rigid registration of depth scans. Eurograph. Symp. Geom. Process. 27:1421–1430, 2008.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu, F., Z. Zhou, H. Jang, A. Samsonov, G. Zhao, and R. Kijowski. Deep convolutional neural network and 3D deformable approach for tissue segmentation in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging. Magn. Reson. Med. 79:2379–2391, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matzat, S. J., F. Kogan, G. W. Fong, and G. E. Gold. Imaging strategies for assessing cartilage composition in osteoarthritis. Curr. Rheumatol. Rep. 16:462, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mittelstaedt, D., and Y. Xia. Depth-dependent glycosaminoglycan concentration in articular cartilage by quantitative contrast-enhanced micro-computed tomography. Cartilage 6:216–225, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moshtagh, P. R. R., B. Pouran, J. van Tiel, J. Rauker, M. R. R. Zuiddam, V. Arbabi, N. M. M. Korthagen, H. Weinans, and A. A. A. Zadpoor. Micro- and nano-mechanics of osteoarthritic cartilage: the effects of tonicity and disease severity. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 59:561–571, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Myller, K. A. H., M. J. Turunen, J. T. J. Honkanen, S. P. Väänänen, J. T. Iivarinen, J. Salo, J. S. Jurvelin, and J. Töyräs. In vivo contrast-enhanced cone beam CT provides quantitative information on articular cartilage and subchondral bone. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 45:811–818, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Olson, S. A., B. D. Furman, V. B. Kraus, J. L. Huebner, and F. Guilak. Therapeutic opportunities to prevent post-traumatic arthritis: lessons from the natural history of arthritis after articular fracture. J. Orthop. Res. 33:1266–1277, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pedoia, V., X. Li, F. Su, N. Calixto, and S. Majumdar. Fully automatic analysis of the knee articular cartilage T1p relaxation time using voxel-based relaxometry. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 43:970–980, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pedoia, V., S. Majumdar, and T. M. Link. Segmentation of joint and musculoskeletal tissue in the study of arthritis. Magn. Reson. Mater. Phys. 29:207–221, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pereanez, M., K. Lekadir, I. Castro-Mateos, J. M. Pozo, A. Lazary, and A. F. Frangi. Accurate segmentation of vertebral bodies and processes using statistical shape decomposition and conditional models. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 34:1627–1639, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pierce, D. M., W. Trobin, S. Trattnig, H. Bischof, and G. A. Holzapfel. A phenomenological approach toward patient-specific computational modeling of articular cartilage including collagen fiber tracking. J. Biomech. Eng. 131:91006, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saukko, A. E. A., J. T. J. Honkanen, W. Xu, S. P. Väänänen, J. S. Jurvelin, V.-P. Lehto, and J. Töyräs. Dual contrast CT method enables diagnostics of cartilage injuries and degeneration using a single CT image. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 45:2857–2866, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shafieyan, Y., N. Khosravi, M. Moeini, and T. M. Quinn. Diffusion of MRI and CT contrast agents in articular cartilage under static compression. Biophys. J. 107:485–492, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shim, H., S. Chang, C. Tao, J.-H. Wang, C. Kent Kwoh, and K. T. Bae. Knee cartilage: efficient and reproducible segmentation on high-spatial-resolution MR images with the semiautomated graph-cut algorithm method. Radiology 251:548–556, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Silvast, T. S., J. S. Jurvelin, M. J. Lammi, and J. Töyräs. pQCT study on diffusion and equilibrium distribution of iodinated anionic contrast agent in human articular cartilage—associations to matrix composition and integrity. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 17:26–32, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sölveborn, S. A. Trauma. In: Emergency Orthopedics: A Manual on Acute Conditions of the Locomotor System, edited by S. A. Sölveborn. Berlin: Springer, 2014, pp. 67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stewart, R. C., J. T. J. Honkanen, H. T. Kokkonen, V. Tiitu, S. Saarakkala, A. Joukainen, B. D. Snyder, J. S. Jurvelin, M. W. Grinstaff, and J. Töyräs. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography enables quantitative evaluation of tissue properties at intrajoint regions in cadaveric knee cartilage. Cartilage 8:391–399, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tabrizi, P. R., R. A. Zoroofi, F. Yokota, S. Tamura, T. Nishii, and Y. Sato. Acetabular cartilage segmentation in CT arthrography based on a bone-normalized probabilistic atlas. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 10:433–446, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tabrizi, P. R., R. A. Zoroofi, F. Yokota, T. Nishii, and Y. Sato. Shape-based acetabular cartilage segmentation: application to CT and MRI datasets. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 11:1–19, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Taylor, C., J. Carballido-Gamio, S. Majumdar, and X. Li. Comparison of quantitative imaging of cartilage for osteoarthritis: T2, T1ρ, dGEMRIC and contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Magn. Reson. Imaging 27:779–784, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Treece, G. M. M., and A. H. H. Gee. Independent measurement of femoral cortical thickness and cortical bone density using clinical CT. Med. Image Anal. 20:249–264, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Turunen, M. J., J. Töyräs, H. T. Kokkonen, and J. S. Jurvelin. Quantitative evaluation of knee subchondral bone mineral density using cone beam computed tomography. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 34:2186–2190, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Väänänen, S. P., J. S. Jurvelin, and H. Isaksson. Estimation of 3-D shape, internal density and mechanics of proximal femur by combining bone mineral density images with shape and density templates. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 11:791–800, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Väänänen, S. P., L. Grassi, G. Flivik, J. S. Jurvelin, and H. Isaksson. Generation of 3D shape, density, cortical thickness and finite element mesh of proximal femur from a DXA image. Med. Image Anal. 24:125–134, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    van Tiel, J., M. Siebelt, J. H. Waarsing, T. M. Piscaer, M. van Straten, R. Booij, M. L. Dijkshoorn, G. J. Kleinrensink, J. A. N. Verhaar, G. P. Krestin, H. Weinans, and E. H. G. Oei. CT arthrography of the human knee to measure cartilage quality with low radiation dose. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 20:678–685, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Venäläinen, M. S., M. E. Mononen, J. Salo, L. P. Räsänen, J. S. Jurvelin, J. Töyräs, T. Virén, and R. K. Korhonen. Quantitative evaluation of the mechanical risks caused by focal cartilage defects in the knee. Sci. Rep. 6:37538, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wang, Y., A. J. Teichtahl, and F. M. Cicuttini. Osteoarthritis year in review 2015: imaging. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 24:49–57, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Xia, Y., J. Fripp, S. S. Chandra, R. Schwarz, C. Engstrom, and S. Crozier. Automated bone segmentation from large field of view 3D MR images of the hip joint. Phys. Med. Biol. 58:7375–7390, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yin, Y., X. Zhang, R. Williams, X. Wu, D. D. Anderson, and M. Sonka. LOGISMOS-layered optimal graph image segmentation of multiple objects and surfaces: cartilage segmentation in the knee joint. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 29:2023–2037, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhang, K., W. Lu, and P. Marziliano. Automatic knee cartilage segmentation from multi-contrast MR images using support vector machine classification with spatial dependencies. Magn. Reson. Imaging 31:1731–1743, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zou, K. H., S. K. Warfield, A. Bharatha, C. M. C. Tempany, M. R. Kaus, S. J. Haker, W. M. Wells, F. A. Jolesz, and R. Kikinis. Statistical validation of image segmentation quality based on a spatial overlap index. Acad. Radiol. 11:178–189, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied PhysicsUniversity of Eastern FinlandKuopioFinland
  2. 2.Diagnostic Imaging CenterKuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland
  3. 3.Center of OncologyKuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland
  4. 4.Research Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  5. 5.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyOulu University HospitalOuluFinland
  6. 6.Department of Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Hand SurgeryKuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland

Personalised recommendations