Validity of an automatic measure protocol in distal femur for allograft selection from a three-dimensional virtual bone bank system
- 136 Downloads
Osteoarticular allograft is one possible treatment in wide surgical resections with large defects. Performing best osteoarticular allograft selection is of great relevance for optimal exploitation of the bone databank, good surgery outcome and patient’s recovery. Current approaches are, however, very time consuming hindering these points in practice. We present a validation study of a software able to perform automatic bone measurements used to automatically assess the distal femur sizes across a databank. 170 distal femur surfaces were reconstructed from CT data and measured manually using a size measure protocol taking into account the transepicondyler distance (A), anterior-posterior distance in medial condyle (B) and anterior-posterior distance in lateral condyle (C). Intra- and inter-observer studies were conducted and regarded as ground truth measurements. Manual and automatic measures were compared. For the automatic measurements, the correlation coefficients between observer one and automatic method, were of 0.99 for A measure and 0.96 for B and C measures. The average time needed to perform the measurements was of 16 h for both manual measurements, and of 3 min for the automatic method. Results demonstrate the high reliability and, most importantly, high repeatability of the proposed approach, and considerable speed-up on the planning.
KeywordsBone bank system Lograft selection 3D surgical planning
Lucas Eduardo Ritacco, the main author, has been supported by Swiss National Science Foundation, for applying a short fellowship during January, February and March 2011 in which developed the present study at Institute for Surgical Technology, University of Bern, Switzerland. Thanks to Maria del Carmen Ianella, Statistics Project Management.
- Eckhoff DG, Dwyer TF, Bach JM, Spitzer VM, Reinig KD (2001) Three-dimensional morphology of the distal part of the femur viewed in virtual reality. J Bone Jt Surg Am 83(Suppl 2(Pt 1)):43–50Google Scholar
- Eckhoff DG, Bach JM, Spitzer VM, Reinig KD, Bagur MM, Baldini TH, Rubenstein D, Humphries S (2003) Three-dimensional morphology and kinematics of the distal part of the femur viewed in virtual reality. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85(Suppl 4):97–104Google Scholar
- Enneking WF, Campanacci DA (2001) Retrieved human allografts: a clinicopathological study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 83:971–986Google Scholar
- Ibanez L, Schroeder W, Ng L, Cates J et al (2003) The ITK, Software Guide. CiteseerGoogle Scholar
- Klein A, Andersson J, Ardekani B, Ashburner J, Avants B, Chiang MC, Christensen G, Collins D, Gee J, Hellier P, Song J, Jenkinson M, Lepage C, Rueckert D, Thompson P, Vercauteren T, Woods R, Mann J, Parsey R (2009) Evaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration. Neuroimage 46(3):786–802Google Scholar
- Lorensen W, Cline H (1987) Marching cubes: a high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. In proceedings of the 14th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, SIGGRAPH’87, New York, NY, pp 163–169Google Scholar
- Muscolo DL, Petracchi LJ, Ayerza MA, Calabrese ME (1992) Massive femoral allografts followed for 22–36 years. Report of six cases. J Bone Jt Surg Br 74:887–892Google Scholar
- Ourselin S, Roche A, Prima S, Ayache N. Block Matching (2000) A General framework to improve robustness of rigid registration of medical images. in: DiGioia AM, Delp S (eds) Third international conference on medical robotics, imaging and computer assisted surgery (MICCAI 2000) volume 1935 of lectures notes in computer science, Pittsburgh, Penn, USA,October 11–14 2000, pp 557–566Google Scholar
- Seiler C, Weber S., Schmidt W, Fischer F, Reimers N, Reyes M (2009) Automatic propagation for left and right symmetry assessment of tibia and femur. A computational anatomy based approach. Presented at the 9th annual meeting of CAOS (computer assisted orthopaedic surgery); final programme, Boston, MA, USA, Jun 17–20 2009, pp 195–198Google Scholar