Cell and Tissue Banking

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 213–220 | Cite as

Validity of an automatic measure protocol in distal femur for allograft selection from a three-dimensional virtual bone bank system

  • Lucas Eduardo Ritacco
  • Christof Seiler
  • German Luis Farfalli
  • Lutz Nolte
  • Mauricio Reyes
  • Domingo Luis Muscolo
  • Luis Aponte Tinao
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Bone bank system Lograft selection 3D surgical planning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Brin YS, Livshetz I, Antoniou J, Greenberg-Dotan S, Zukor DJ (2010) Precise landmarking in computer assisted total knee arthroplasty is critical to final alignment. J Orthop Res 28(10):1355–1359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Eckhoff DG, Bach JM, Spitzer VM et al (2005) Threedimensional mechanics, kinematics, and morphology of the knee viewed in virtual reality. J Bone Jt Surg Am 87((Suppl 2)):71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Enneking WF, Campanacci DA (2001) Retrieved human allografts: a clinicopathological study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 83:971–986Google Scholar
  6. Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawer M, Pritchard DJ (1993) A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:241–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer B, Modersitzki J (2008) Ill-posed medicine—an introduction to image registration. Inverse Probl 24:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hill DL, Batchelor PG, Holden M, Hawkes DJ (2001) Medical image registration. Phys Med Biol 46(3):R1-45 (Epub 2001/03/30)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ibanez L, Schroeder W, Ng L, Cates J et al (2003) The ITK, Software Guide. CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Li W, Kezele I, Collins DL, Zijdenbos A, Keyak J, Kornak J, Koyama A, Saeed I, LeBlanc A, Harris T, Lu Y, Lang T (2007) Voxel-based modelling and quantification of the proximal femur using inter-subject registration of quantitative CT images. Bone 41(5):888–895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Muscolo DL, Ayerza MA, Aponte-Tinao LA (2000) Survivorship and radiographic análisis of knee osteoarticular allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 373:73–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Paul Laurent, Docquier Pierre-Louis, Cartiaux Olivier, Cornu Olivier, Delloye Christian, Banse Xavier (2010) Selection of massive bone allografts using shape-matching 3-dimensional registration. Acta Orthop 81(2):252–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ritacco LE, Espinoza Orías AA, Aponte-Tinao L, Muscolo DL, de Quirós FG, Nozomu I (2010) Three-dimensional morphometric analysis of the distal femur: a validity method for allograft selection using a virtual bone bank. Stud Health Technol Inform 160((Pt 2)):1287–1290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Thirion JP (1998) Image matching as a diffusion process: an analogy with Maxwell’s demons. Med Image Anal 2(3):243–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vercauteren T, Pennec X, Perchant A, Ayache N (2009) Diffeomorphic demons: efficient non-parametric image registration. Neuroimage 45(1 Suppl):S61–S72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucas Eduardo Ritacco
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christof Seiler
    • 3
  • German Luis Farfalli
    • 2
  • Lutz Nolte
    • 3
  • Mauricio Reyes
    • 3
  • Domingo Luis Muscolo
    • 2
  • Luis Aponte Tinao
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medical Informatics, Virtual Planning and Navigation UnitItalian Hospital of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Institute of Orthopedics “Carlos E. Ottolenghi”, CINEOTItalian Hospital of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.Institute for Surgical TechnologyUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations