Advertisement

Segmentation of X-ray Images by 3D-2D Registration Based on Multibody Physics

  • Jérôme SchmidEmail author
  • Christophe Chênes
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9004)

Abstract

X-ray imaging is commonly used in clinical routine. In radiotherapy, spatial information is extracted from X-ray images to correctly position patients before treatment. Similarly, orthopedic surgeons assess the positioning and migration of implants after Total Hip Replacement (THR) with X-ray images. However, the projective nature of X-ray imaging hinders the reliable extraction of rigid structures in X-ray images, such as bones or metallic components. We developed an approach based on multibody physics that simultaneously registers multiple 3D shapes with one or more 2D X-ray images. Considered as physical bodies, shapes are driven by image forces, which exploit image gradient, and constraints, which enforce spatial dependencies between shapes. Our method was tested on post-operative radiographs of THR and thoroughly validated with gold standard datasets. The final target registration error was in average \(0.3\pm 0.16\) mm and the capture range improved more than 40 % with respect to reference registration methods.

Keywords

Block Match Target Registration Error World Coordinate System Statistical Shape Model Compute Tomography Volume 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work is funded by the Swiss CTI project MyHip (no. 13573.1). Authors would like to thank E. Ambrosetti, J. Marquis and the MyHip consortium. The CT and Xray images and gold standard registration were provided by the Laboratory of Imaging Technologies, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia [4] and the Image Sciences Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands [3].

Supplementary material

Supplementary material (mov 5,039 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Fu, D., Kuduvalli, G.: A fast, accurate, and automatic 2D–3D image registration for image-guided cranial radiosurgery. Med Phys. 35, 2180–2194 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hurvitz, A., Joskowicz, L.: Registration of a CT-like atlas to fluoroscopic X-ray images using intensity correspondences. IJCARS 3, 493–504 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van de Kraats, E., Penney, G., Tomazevic, D., van Walsum, T., Niessen, W.: Standardized evaluation methodology for 2-D-3-D registration. IEEE Trans. Med. Image 24, 1177–1189 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tomazevic, D., Likar, B., Slivnik, T., Pernus, F.: 3-D/2-D registration of CT and MR to X-ray images. IEEE Trans. Med. Image 22, 1407–1416 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benameur, S., Mignotte, M., Parent, S., Labelle, H., Skalli, W., de Guise, J.: 3D/2D registration and segmentation of scoliotic vertebrae using statistical models. Comput. Med. Image Graph. 27, 321–337 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zheng, G., von Recum, J., Nolte, L.P., Grützner, P.A., Steppacher, S.D., Franke, J.: Validation of a statistical shape model-based 2D/3D reconstruction method for determination of cup orientation after THA. IJCARS 7, 225–231 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Markelj, P., Tomazevic, D., Likar, B., Pernus, F.: A review of 3D/2D registration methods for image-guided interventions. Med. Image Anal. 16, 642–661 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koyanagi, J., Sakai, T., Yamazaki, T., Watanabe, T., Akiyama, K., Sugano, N., Yoshikawa, H., Sugamoto, K.: In vivo kinematic analysis of squatting after total hip arthroplasty. Clin. Biomech. 26, 477–483 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Penney, G., Weese, J., Little, J., Desmedt, P., Hill, D.L.G., Hawkes, D.: A comparison of similarity measures for use in 2-D-3-D medical image registration. IEEE Trans. Med. Image 17, 586–595 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Bom, I., Klein, S., Staring, M., Homan, R., Bartels, L., Pluim, J.: Evaluation of optimization methods for intensity-based 2D–3D registration in x-ray guided interventions. In: Proceedings of SPIE 7962, Medical Imaging, pp. 796223–796238 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tomazevic, D., Likar, B., Pernus, F.: 3-D/2-D registration by integrating 2-D information in 3-D. IEEE Trans. Med. Image 25, 17–27 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Markelj, P., Tomazevic, D., Pernus, F., Likar, B.: Robust gradient-based 3-D/2-D registration of CT and MR to X-Ray images. IEEE Trans. Med. Image 27, 1704–1714 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kubias, A., Deinzer, F., Feldmann, T., Paulus, D., Schreiber, B., Brunner, T.: 2D/3D image registration on the GPU. Pattern Recogn. Image Anal. 18, 381–389 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Livyatan, H., Yaniv, Z., Joskowicz, L.: Gradient-based 2-D/3-D rigid registration of fluoroscopic X-ray to CT. IEEE Trans. Med. Image 22, 1395–1406 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wein, W., Roeper, B., Navab, N.: 2D/3D registration based on volume gradients. Proc. SPIE 5747, 144–150 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahfouz, M.R., Hoff, W.A., Komistek, R.D., Dennis, D.A.: Effect of segmentation errors on 3D-to-2D registration of implant models in X-ray images. J. Biomech. 38, 229–239 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kurazume, R., Nakamura, K., Okada, T., Sato, Y., Sugano, N., Koyama, T., Iwashita, Y., Hasegawa, T.: 3D reconstruction of a femoral shape using a parametric model and two 2D fluoroscopic images. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 113, 202–211 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ourselin, S., Roche, A., Prima, S., Ayache, N.: Block matching: a general framework to improve robustness of rigid registration of medical images. In: Delp, S.L., DiGoia, A.M., Jaramaz, B. (eds.) MICCAI 2000. LNCS, vol. 1935, pp. 557–566. Springer, Heidelberg (2000) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murray, D.: The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J. Bone Joint Surg. 75, 228–232 (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roy, M., Foufou, S., Truchetet, F.: Mesh comparison using attribute deviation metric. Int. J. Image Graph. 4, 127–140 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmid, J., Magnenat-Thalmann, N.: MRI bone segmentation using deformable models and shape priors. In: Metaxas, D., Axel, L., Fichtinger, G., Székely, G. (eds.) MICCAI 2008, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5241, pp. 119–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geneva School of HealthUniversity of Applied Sciences of Western SwitzerlandGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations