Skip to main content

EM Segmentation of the Distal Femur and Proximal Tibia: A High-Throughput Approach to Anatomic Surface Generation

Abstract

Fully automated segmentation of computed tomography (CT) images remains a challenge for musculoskeletal researchers. The surfaces generated from image segmentations are valuable for surgical evaluation and planning. Previously, we demonstrated the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm as a semi-automated method of bone segmentation from CT images. In this work, we improve upon the methodology of probability map generation and demonstrate extended applicability of EM-based segmentation to the distal femur and proximal tibia using 72 CT image sets. We also compare the resulting EM segmentations to manual tracings using overlap metrics and time. In the case of the distal femur, the resulting quality metrics had mean values of 0.91 and 0.95 for the Jaccard and Dice metrics, respectively. For the proximal tibia, the Jaccard and Dice metrics were 0.90 and 0.95, respectively. The EM segmentation method was 8 times faster than the average manual segmentation and required less than 4% of the human rater time. Overall, the EM algorithm offers reliable image segmentations with an increased efficiency in comparison to manual segmentation techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. Burnett, S. S., G. Starkschalla, C. W. Stevens, and Z. Liao. A deformable-model approach to semi-automatic segmentation of CT images demonstrated by application to the spinal canal. Med. Phys. 31:251–263, 2004.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. DeVries, N. A., E. E. Gassman, N. A. Kallemeyn, K. H. Shivanna, V. A. Magnotta, and N. M. Grosland. Validation of phalanx bone three-dimensional surface segmentation from computed tomography images using laser scanning. Skeletal Radiol. 37:35–42, 2008.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dodin, P., J. Pelletier, J. Martel-Pelletier, and F. Abram. Automatic human knee cartilage segmentation from 3-D Magnetic resonance images. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 57:2699–2711, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dufresne, T. Segmentation techniques for analysis of bone by three-dimensional computed tomographic imaging. Technol. Health Care 6:351–359, 1998.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ehrhardt, J., H. Handels, T. Malina, B. Strathmann, W. Plotz, and S. J. Poppl. Atlas-based segmentation of bone structures to support the virtual planning of hip operations. Int. J. Med. Inform. 64:439–447, 2001.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gassman, E. E., S. M. Powell, N. A. Kallemeyn, N. A. Devries, K. H. Shivanna, V. A. Magnotta, A. J. Ramme, B. D. Adams, and N. N. Grosland. Automated bony region identification using artificial neural networks: reliability and validation measurements. Skeletal Radiol. 37:313–319, 2008.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gelaude, F., J. Vander Sloten, and B. Lauwers. Semi-automated segmentation and visualisation of outer bone cortex from medical images. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 9:65–77, 2006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 22:586–598, 2003.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Klein, A., J. Andersson, B. A. Ardekani, J. Ashburner, B. Avants, M. C. Chiang, G. E. Christensen, D. L. Collins, J. Gee, P. Hellier, J. H. Song, M. Jenkinson, C. Lepage, D. Rueckert, P. Thompson, T. Vercauteren, R. P. Woods, J. J. Mann, and R. V. Parsey. Evaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration. Neuroimage 46:786–802, 2009.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Li, Y., B. Hong, S. Gao, and K. Liu. Bone segmentation in human CT images. Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi 21:169–173, 2004.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu, J., J. K. Udupa, P. K. Saha, D. Odhner, B. E. Hirsch, S. Siegler, S. Simon, and B. A. Winkelstein. Rigid model-based 3D segmentation of the bones of joints in MR and CT images for motion analysis. Med. Phys. 35:3637–3649, 2008.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Magnotta, V. A., G. Harris, N. C. Andreasen, D. S. O’Leary, W. T. Yuh, and D. Heckel. Structural MR image processing using the BRAINS2 toolbox. Comput. Med. Imaging Graph. 26:251–264, 2002.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mastmeyer, A., K. Engelke, C. Fuchs, and W. A. Kalender. A hierarchical 3D segmentation method and the definition of vertebral body coordinate systems for QCT of the lumbar spine. Med. Image Anal. 10:560–577, 2006.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Museyko, O., F. Eisa, A. Hess, G. Schett, W. A. Kalender, and K. Engelke. Binary segmentation masks can improve intrasubject registration accuracy of bone structures in CT images. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 38:2464–2472, 2010.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pardo, X. M., M. J. Carreira, A. Mosquera, and D. Cabello. A snake for CT image segmentation integrating region and edge information. Image Vision Comput. 19:461–475, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pohl, K. M., J. Fisher, W. E. Grimson, and W. M. Wells. An expectation maximization approach for integrated registration, segmentation, and intensity correction. AI Memo 2005-010:1–13, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pohl, K. M., J. Fisher, R. Kikinis, W. E. Grimson, and W. M. Wells. Shape based segmentation of anatomical structures in magnetic resonance images. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 3765:489–498, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pohl, K. M., J. Fisher, J. J. Levitt, M. E. Shenton, R. Kikinis, W. E. Grimson, and W. M. Wells. A unifying approach to registration, segmentation, and intensity correction. Med. Image Comput. Comput. Assist. Interv. 8:310–318, 2005.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pohl, K. M., J. Fisher, W. E. Grimson, R. Kikinis, and W. M. Wells. A Bayesian model for joint segmentation and registration. Neuroimage 31:228–239, 2006.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ramme, A. J., N. DeVries, N. A. Kallemyn, V. A. Magnotta, and N. M. Grosland. Semi-automated phalanx bone segmentation using the expectation maximization algorithm. J. Digit. Imaging 22:483–491, 2009.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rannou, N., S. Jaume, S. Pieper, and R. Kikinis. New expectation maximization segmentation pipeline in Slicer3. Insight J. 2009 July–December. http://hdl.handle.net/10380/3127.

  22. Rueda, S., J. A. Gil, R. Pichery, and M. Alcaniz. Automatic segmentation of jaw tissues in CT using active appearance models and semi-automatic landmarking. Med. Image Comput. Comput. Assist. Interv 9:167–174, 2006.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Saparin, P., J. S. Thomsen, J. Kurths, G. Beller, and W. Gowin. Segmentation of bone CT images and assessment of bone structure using measures of complexity. Med. Phys. 33:3857–3873, 2006.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sebastian, T. B., H. Tek, J. J. Crisco, and B. B. Kimia. Segmentation of carpal bones from CT images using skeletally coupled deformable models. Med. Image Anal. 7:21–45, 2003.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Staal, J., B. van Ginneken, and M. A. Viergever. Automatic rib segmentation and labeling in computed tomography scans using a general framework for detection, recognition and segmentation of objects in volumetric data. Med. Image Anal. 11:35–46, 2007.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Thirion, J. P. Image matching as a diffusion process: an analogy with Maxwell’s demons. Med. Image Anal. 2:243–260, 1998.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tustison, N. J., and J. C. Gee. Introducing Dice, Jaccard, and other label overlap measures to ITK. Insight J. 2009 July–December. http://hdl.handle.net/10380/3141.

  28. Zoroofi, R. A., Y. Sato, T. Sasama, T. Nishii, N. Sugano, K. Yonenobu, H. Yoshikawa, T. Ochi, and S. Tamura. Automated segmentation of acetabulum and femoral head from 3-D CT images. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 7:329–343, 2003.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge DonJoy Orthopaedics (Carlsbad, CA) for providing the cadaveric specimens and the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network Knee group (MOON—based at Vanderbilt University) for providing the CT scans; and Dr. Carla Britton, MS, PhD for coordinating the CT scans for our study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole M. Grosland.

Additional information

Associate Editor Jing Bai oversaw the review of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramme, A.J., Criswell, A.J., Wolf, B.R. et al. EM Segmentation of the Distal Femur and Proximal Tibia: A High-Throughput Approach to Anatomic Surface Generation. Ann Biomed Eng 39, 1555–1562 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-010-0244-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-010-0244-7

Keywords

  • Expectation maximization
  • 3D segmentation
  • Bone
  • Knee
  • Computed tomography