Abstract
This paper presents a firsthand comparative evaluation of three different existing methods for selecting a suitable allograft from a bone storage bank. The three examined methods are manual selection, automatic volume-based registration, and automatic surface-based registration. Although the methods were originally published for different bones, they were adapted to be systematically applied on the same data set of hemi-pelvises. A thorough experiment was designed and applied in order to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each method. The methods were applied on the whole pelvis and on smaller fragments, thus producing a realistic set of clinical scenarios. Clinically relevant criteria are used for the assessment such as surface distances and the quality of the junctions between the donor and the receptor. The obtained results showed that both automatic methods outperform the manual counterpart. Additional advantages of the surface-based method are in the lower computational time requirements and the greater contact surfaces where the donor meets the recipient.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Besl, P., and N. McKay. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 14:239–256, 1992.
Bou Sleiman, H., L. E. Ritacco, L. Aponte-Tinao, D. L. Muscolo, L.-P. Nolte, and M. Reyes. Allograft selection for transepiphyseal tumor resection around the knee using three-dimensional surface registration. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39:1720–1727, 2011.
Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 20:37–46, 1960.
Delloye, C., X. Banse, B. Birchard, P.-L. Docquier, and O. Cornu. Pelvic reconstruction with a structural pelvic allograft after resection of a malignant bone tumor. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 89:579–587, 2007.
Dice, L. R. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26:297–302, 1945.
Donati, D., C. Di Bella, T. Frisoni, L. Cevolani, and H. DeGroot. Alloprosthetic composite is a suitable reconstruction after periacetabular tumor resection. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 469:1450–1458, 2011.
Enneking, W. F., and W. K. Dunham. Resection and reconstruction for primary neoplasms involving the innominate bone. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 60:731–746, 1978.
Greenberg, A. M., and J. Prein (eds.). Craniomaxillofacial Reconstructive and Corrective Bone Surgery. New York: Springer, 2002.
Huttenlocher, D. P., G. A. Klanderman, and W. J. Rucklidge. Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 15:850–863, 1993.
Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174, 1977.
Malhotra, R., and V. Kumar. Acetabular revision using a total acetabular allograft. Indian J. Orthop. 43:218–221, 2009.
Mankin, H. J., M. C. Gebhardt, L. C. Jennings, D. S. Springfield, and W. W. Tomford. Long-term results of allograft replacement in the management of bone tumors. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 324:86–97, 1996.
Mankin, H., M. Gebhardt, and W. Tomford. The use of frozen cadaveric allografts in the management of patients with bone tumors of the extremities. Orthop. Clin. N. Am. 18:275–289, 1987.
Matejovsky, Z., and I. Kofranek. Massive allografts in tumour surgery. Int. Orthop. 30:478–483, 2006.
Muscolo, D. L., M. A. Ayerza, L. Aponte-Tinao, and G. Farfalli. Allograft reconstruction after sarcoma resection in children younger than 10 years old. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 466:1856–1862, 2008.
Muscolo, D. L., M. A. Ayerza, L. Aponte-Tinao, and M. Ranalletta. Partial epiphyseal preservation and intercalary allograft reconstruction in osteosarcoma of the knee. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 86:2686–2693, 2004.
Ozger, H., M. Bulbul, and L. Eralp. Complications of limb salvage surgery in childhood tumors and recommended solutions. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr. 5:11–15, 2010.
Paul, L., P.-L. Docquier, O. Cartiaux, O. Cornu, C. Delloye, and X. Banse. Inaccuracy in selection of massive bone allograft using template comparison method. Cell Tissue Bank. 9:83–90, 2008.
Paul, L., P.-L. Docquier, O. Cartiaux, O. Cornu, C. Delloye, and X. Banse. Selection of massive bone allografts using shape-matching 3-dimensional registration. Acta orthopaedica 81:252–257, 2010.
Petrie, A. Statistics in orthopaedic papers. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 88:1121–1136, 2006.
Ramseier, L. E., T. I. Malinin, H. T. Temple, W. A. Mnaymneh, and G. U. Exner. Allograft reconstruction for bone sarcoma of the tibia in the growing child. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 88:95–99, 2006.
Ritacco, L. E., A. A. Espinoza Orías, L. Aponte-Tinao, D. L. Muscolo, F. G. B. de Quirós, and I. Nozomu. Three-dimensional morphometric analysis of the distal femur: a validity method for allograft selection using a virtual bone bank. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 160:1287–1290, 2010.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Pierre-Louis Docquier, Dr. Salman Alaraibi for carrying out the manual selection. We also thank Dr. Lucas E. Ritacco for participating in the application of the manual method and pre-processing the data. This work was carried out within the frame of the National Centre of Competence in Research, Computer-Aided and Image-Guided Medical Interventions (NCCR Co-Me), supported by the funds of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Associate Editor Xiaoxiang Zheng oversaw the review of this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bousleiman, H., Paul, L., Nolte, LP. et al. Comparative Evaluation of Pelvic Allograft Selection Methods. Ann Biomed Eng 41, 931–938 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0739-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0739-0