Segmentation of the Proximal Femur by the Analysis of X-ray Imaging Using Statistical Models of Shape and Appearance

  • Joel Oswaldo Gallegos Guillen
  • Laura Jovani Estacio Cerquin
  • Javier Delgado Obando
  • Eveling Castro-GutierrezEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10842)


Using image processing to assist in the diagnostic of diseases is a growing challenge. Segmentation is one of the relevant stages in image processing. We present a strategy of complete segmentation of the proximal femur (right and left) in anterior-posterior pelvic radiographs using statistical models of shape and appearance for assistance in the diagnostics of diseases associated with femurs. Quantitative results are provided using the DICE coefficient and the processing time, on a set of clinical data that indicate the validity of our proposal.


Segmentation AP X-ray Statistical shape models (SSM) Statistical appearance models (SAM) Gold standard DICE coefficient 



This research project was subsidized by the San Agustín National University. RDE No. 121-2016-FONDECYT-DE, RV. No. 004-2016-VR.INV-UNSA. Thanks to the “Research Center, Transfer of Technologies and Software Development R + D + i” – CiTeSoft-UNSA for their collaboration in the use of their equipment and facilities, for the development of this research work.


  1. 1.
    Weidman, E.K., Dean, K.E., Rivera, W., Loftus, M.L., Stokes, T.W., Min, R.J.: MRI safety: a report of current practice and advancements in patient preparation and screening. Clin. Imaging 39(6), 935–937 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kandasamy, M.S., Duraisamy, M., Ganeshsankar, K., Kurup, V.G.K., Radhakrishnan, S.: Acetabular fractures: an analysis on clinical outcomes of surgical treatment. Int. J. Res. Orthop. 3(1), 122–126 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu, J., Davuluri, P., Ward, K.R., Cockrell, C., Hobson, R., Najarian, K.: Fracture detection in traumatic pelvic CT images. J. Biomed. Imaging 2012, 1 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jeuthe, J.: Automatic Tissue Segmentation of Volumetric CT Data of the Pelvic Region (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edeh, V.I., Olowoyeye, O.A., Irurhe, N.K., Abonyi, L.C., Arogundade, R.A., Awosanya, G.O., Eze, C.U., Omiyi, O.D.: Common factors affecting radiographic diagnostic quality in X-ray facilities in lagos. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Sci. 43, 108–111 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alginahi, Y.: Preprocessing techniques in character recognition. In: Character Recognition, Minoru Mori (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pandey, M., Bhatia, M., Bansal, A.: An anatomization of noise removal techniques on medical image. In: 2016 21st International Conference on Innovation and Challenges in Cyber Security (ICICCS-INBUSH), pp. 224–229 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ramamurthy, P.: Factors controlling the quality of radiography and the quality assurance. National Tuberculosis Institute (NTI), Bangalore, vol. 31, pp. 37–41 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xie, W., Franke, J., Chen, C., Gruetzner, P., Schumann, S., Nolte, L.P., Zheng, G.: A complete pelvis segmentation framework for image-free total hip arthroplasty (THA): methodology and clinical study. Int. J. Med. Robot. Comput. Assist. Surg. 11, 166–180 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schumann, S., Sato, Y., Nakanishi, Y., Yokota, F., Takao, M., Sugano, N., Zheng, G.: Cup implant planning based on 2-D/3-D radiographic pelvis reconstruction – first clinical results. IEEE Trans. Biomed. 62, 2665–2673 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yu, W., Zheng, G.: 2D-3D regularized deformable B-spline registration: application to the proximal femur. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, vol. 1, pp. 829–832 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, C., Zheng, G.: Fully automatic segmentation of AP pelvis X-rays via random forest regression and hierarchical sparse shape composition. In: Wilson, R., Hancock, E., Bors, A., Smith, W. (eds.) CAIP 2013. LNCS, vol. 8047, pp. 335–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xie, W., Franke, J., Chen, C., Grützner, P.A., Schumann, S., Nolte, L.P., Zheng, G.: Statistical model-based segmentation of the proximal femur in digital antero-posterior (AP) pelvic radiographs. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 9, 165–176 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Akkus, Z., Carvalho, D.D., van den Oord, S.C., Schinkel, A.F., Niessen, W.J., de Jong, N., van der Steen, A.F., Klein, S., Bosch, J.G.: Fully automated carotid plaque segmentation in combined contrast-enhanced and B-mode ultrasound. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 41(2), 517–531 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Viergever, M.A., Maintz, J.A., Klein, S., Murphy, K., Staring, M., Pluim, J.P.: A survey of medical image registration-under review. Med. Image Anal. 33, 140–144 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tamouk, J., Acan, A.: Entropy guided clustering improvements and statistical rule-based refinements for bone segmentation of X-ray images. J. Comput. Sci. 4(1), 39–66 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen, C., Xie, W., Franke, J., Grutzner, P., Nolte, L.P., Zheng, G.: Automatic X-ray landmark detection and shape segmentation via data-driven joint estimation of image displacements. Med. Image Anal. 18, 487–499 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krishnakumari, P.K.: Supervised learning for measuring hip joint distance in digital X-ray images. Master thesis, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Computer Graphics and Visualization. Delft University of Technology, August 2015Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu, L., Cao, Y., Fessler, J.A., Jolly, S., Balter, J.M.: A female pelvic bone shape model for air/bone separation in support of synthetic CT generation for radiation therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 61(1), 169 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yeo, S., Romero, J., Loper, M., Machann, J., Black, M.: Shape estimation of subcutaneous adipose tissue using an articulated statistical shape model. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng.: Imaging Vis. 6, 1–8 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raudaschl, P., Fritscher, K.: Statistical shape and appearance models for bone quality assessment. In: Statistical Shape and Deformation Analysis: Methods, Implementation and Applications, p. 409 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cootes, T.F., Edwards, G.J., Taylor, C.J.: Active appearance models. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 23(6), 681–685 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.San Agustín National University of ArequipaArequipaPeru
  2. 2.Austral University of ChileValdiviaChile

Personalised recommendations