Osteoporosis International

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 455–461 | Cite as

Generation of a 3D proximal femur shape from a single projection 2D radiographic image

Original Article



Generalized Procrustes analysis and thin plate splines were employed to create an average 3D shape template of the proximal femur that was warped to the size and shape of a single 2D radiographic image of a subject. Mean absolute depth errors are comparable with previous approaches utilising multiple 2D input projections.


Several approaches have been adopted to derive volumetric density (g cm-3) from a conventional 2D representation of areal bone mineral density (BMD, g cm-2). Such approaches have generally aimed at deriving an average depth across the areal projection rather than creating a formal 3D shape of the bone.


Generalized Procrustes analysis and thin plate splines were employed to create an average 3D shape template of the proximal femur that was subsequently warped to suit the size and shape of a single 2D radiographic image of a subject. CT scans of excised human femora, 18 and 24 scanned at pixel resolutions of 1.08 mm and 0.674 mm, respectively, were equally split into training (created 3D shape template) and test cohorts.


The mean absolute depth errors of 3.4 mm and 1.73 mm, respectively, for the two CT pixel sizes are comparable with previous approaches based upon multiple 2D input projections.


This technique has the potential to derive volumetric density from BMD and to facilitate 3D finite element analysis for prediction of the mechanical integrity of the proximal femur. It may further be applied to other anatomical bone sites such as the distal radius and lumbar spine.


Geometric morphometrics Proximal femur Three-dimensional shape Volumetric density 


  1. 1.
    Njeh CF, Fuerst T, Hans D, Blake GM, Genant HK (1999) Radiation exposure in bone mineral density assessment. Appl Radiat Isotopes 50:215–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carter DR, Bouxsein ML, Marcus R (1992) New approaches for interpreting projected bone densitometry data. J Bone Miner Res 7:137–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jergas M, Breitenseher M, Gluer CC, Yu W, Genant HK (1995) Estimates of volumetric bone density from projectional measurements improve the discriminatory capability of dual x-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 10:1101–1110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cvijetic S, Korsic M (2004) Apparent bone mineral density estimated from DXA in healthy men and women. Osteoporos Int 15:295–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duboef F, Pommet R, Meunier PJ, Delmas PD (1994) Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry of the spine in anteroposterior and lateral projections. Osteoporos Int 4:110–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sabin MA, Blake GM, MacLaughlin-Black SM, Fogelman I (1995) The accuracy of volumetric bone density measurements in dual x-ray absorptiometry. Calcif Tissue Int 56:210–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peel NFA, Eastell R (1994) Diagnostic value of estimated volumetric bone mineral density of the lumbar spine in osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9:317–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boyanov M, Popivanov P, Gentchev G (2002) Assessment of forearm volumetric bone mineral density from standard areal densitometry data. J Clin Densitom 5:391–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leslie WD, DeVos G, Dupont JO, Peterdy AE (2001) Reproducibility of volume-adjusted bone mineral denity of spine and hip from dual x-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom 4:307–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hou Y-L, Wu X-P, Luo X-H, Zhang H, Cao X-Z, Jiang Y-B, Liao E-Y (2007) Differences in age-related bone mass of proximal femur between Chinese women and different ethnic women in the United States. J Bone Miner Metab 25:243–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caponetti l, Fanelli AM (1990) 3D bone reconstruction from two x-ray views. In Proc IEEE Conf Eng in Medicine and Biology, pp 208–210Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nikkhade-Dehkordi B, Bro-Nielsen M, Darvann T, Gramkow C, Egund N, Hermann K (1996) 3D reconstruction of the femoral bone using two x-ray images from orthogonal views. In Proc. Computer Assisted Radiology (CAR’96), pp 1015, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foley JD, Dam AV, Feiner SK, Hughes JF (1990) Computer graphics: principles and practice, 2nd edn. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laporte S, Skalli W, de Guise JA, Lavaste F, Mitton D (2003) A biplanar reconstruction method based on 2D and 3D contours-application to the distal femur. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 6:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kolta S, Le Bras A, Mitton D, Bousson V, De Guise JA, Fechtenbaum J, Laredo JD, Roux C, Skalli W (2005) Three-dimensional X-ray absorptiometry (3D-XA): a method for reconstruction of human bones using a dual X-ray absorptiometry device. Osteoporos Int 16:969–976PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kendall D (1977) The diffusion of shape. Adv Appl Probab 9:428–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zheng G, Ballester M, Styner M, Nolte L (2006). Reconstruction of patient-specific 3D bone surface from 2D calibrated fluoroscopic images and point distribution model. In Proc International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp 25–32. Springer Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lang P, Steiger P, Faulkner K, Gluer C, Genant HK (1991) Osteoporosis: Current techniques and recent developments in quantitative bone densitometry. Radiol Clin North Am 29:49–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keyak JH, Kaneko TS, Tehranzadeh J, Skinner HB (2005) Predicting proximal femoral strength using structural engineering models. Clin Orthop Relat Res 437:219–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL (2004) Geometric morphometrics for biologists -a primer. Elsevier Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rohlf FJ (1990) Rotational fit (procrustes) methods. In: Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL (eds) (1990) Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop, number 2, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bookstein FL (1989) Principal warps-thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 11:567–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manly BFJ (2000) Multivariate statistical methods, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRCGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ward KA, Roy DK, Pye SR, O’Neill TW, Berry JL, Swarbrick CM, Silman AJ, Adams JE (2007) Forearm bone geometry and mineral content in UK women of European and South-Asian origin. Bone 41:117–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barrett-Connor E, Siris ES, Wehren LE, Miller PD, Abbott TA, Berger ML, Santora AC, Sherwood LM (2005) Osteoporosis and fracture risk in women of different ethnic groups. J Bone Miner Res 20:185–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meta M, Lua Y, Keyak JH, Lang T (2006) Young-elderly differences in bone density, geometry and strength indices depend on proximal femur sub-region: a cross sectional study in Caucasian-American women. Bone 36:152–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mayhew PM, Thomas CD, Clement JG, Loveridge N, Beck TJ, Bonfield W, Burgoyne CJ, Reeve J (2005) Relation between age, femoral neck cortical stability and hip fracture risk. Lancet 366:129–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Metabolic Bone DiseaseHull Royal InfirmaryHullUK
  2. 2.Postgraduate Medical InstituteUniversity of HullHullUK
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HullHullUK
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  5. 5.Medical PhysicsQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations