Literature DB >> 28177300

Spinal pedicle screw planning using deformable atlas registration.

J Goerres1, A Uneri, T De Silva, M Ketcha, S Reaungamornrat, M Jacobson, S Vogt, G Kleinszig, G Osgood, J-P Wolinsky, J H Siewerdsen.   

Abstract

Spinal screw placement is a challenging task due to small bone corridors and high risk of neurological or vascular complications, benefiting from precision guidance/navigation and quality assurance (QA). Implicit to both guidance and QA is the definition of a surgical plan-i.e. the desired trajectories and device selection for target vertebrae-conventionally requiring time-consuming manual annotations by a skilled surgeon. We propose automation of such planning by deriving the pedicle trajectory and device selection from a patient's preoperative CT or MRI. An atlas of vertebrae surfaces was created to provide the underlying basis for automatic planning-in this work, comprising 40 exemplary vertebrae at three levels of the spine (T7, T8, and L3). The atlas was enriched with ideal trajectory annotations for 60 pedicles in total. To define trajectories for a given patient, sparse deformation fields from the atlas surfaces to the input (CT or MR image) are applied on the annotated trajectories. Mean value coordinates are used to interpolate dense deformation fields. The pose of a straight trajectory is optimized by image-based registration to an accumulated volume of the deformed annotations. For evaluation, input deformation fields were created using coherent point drift (CPD) to perform a leave-one-out analysis over the atlas surfaces. CPD registration demonstrated surface error of 0.89  ±  0.10 mm (median  ±  interquartile range) for T7/T8 and 1.29  ±  0.15 mm for L3. At the pedicle center, registered trajectories deviated from the expert reference by 0.56  ±  0.63 mm (T7/T8) and 1.12  ±  0.67 mm (L3). The predicted maximum screw diameter differed by 0.45  ±  0.62 mm (T7/T8), and 1.26  ±  1.19 mm (L3). The automated planning method avoided screw collisions in all cases and demonstrated close agreement overall with expert reference plans, offering a potentially valuable tool in support of surgical guidance and QA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28177300      PMCID: PMC9148916          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa5f42

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   4.174


  38 in total

1.  Optimal surgical planning guidance for lumbar spinal fusion considering operational safety and vertebra-screw interface strength.

Authors:  Jongwon Lee; Sungmin Kim; Young Soo Kim; Wan Kyun Chung
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 2.547

2.  Point set registration: coherent point drift.

Authors:  Andriy Myronenko; Xubo Song
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 6.226

3.  Computer-Assisted Screw Size and Insertion Trajectory Planning for Pedicle Screw Placement Surgery.

Authors:  Dejan Knez; Bostjan Likar; Franjo Pernus; Tomaz Vrtovec
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 10.048

4.  Planning screw insertion trajectory in lumbar spinal fusion using pre-operative CT images.

Authors:  N Daemi; A Ahmadian; A Mirbagheri; A H Ahmadian; H Saberi; F Amidi; J Alirezaie
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2015-08

5.  HipMatch: an object-oriented cross-platform program for accurate determination of cup orientation using 2D-3D registration of single standard X-ray radiograph and a CT volume.

Authors:  Guoyan Zheng; Xuan Zhang; Simon D Steppacher; Stephen B Murphy; Klaus A Siebenrock; Moritz Tannast
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2009-03-27       Impact factor: 5.428

6.  Spine segmentation in medical images using manifold embeddings and higher-order MRFs.

Authors:  Samuel Kadoury; Hubert Labelle; Nikos Paragios
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 10.048

7.  The rotate-plus-shift C-arm trajectory. Part I. Complete data with less than 180° rotation.

Authors:  Ludwig Ritschl; Jan Kuntz; Christof Fleischmann; Marc Kachelrieß
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Anatomic analysis of pedicle cortical and cancellous diameter as related to screw size.

Authors:  G R Misenhimer; R D Peek; L L Wiltse; S L Rothman; E H Widell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Anatomic and radiographic considerations for placement of transiliac screws in lumbopelvic fixations.

Authors:  Thomas A Schildhauer; Patrick McCulloch; Jens R Chapman; Frederick A Mann
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2002-06

10.  Cost-effectiveness of image-guided spine surgery.

Authors:  Robert Green Watkins; Akash Gupta; Robert Green Watkins
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2010-08-06
View more
  8 in total

1.  Robotic drill guide positioning using known-component 3D-2D image registration.

Authors:  Thomas Yi; Vignesh Ramchandran; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Ali Uneri
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-02-06

2.  Planning, guidance, and quality assurance of pelvic screw placement using deformable image registration.

Authors:  J Goerres; A Uneri; M Jacobson; B Ramsay; T De Silva; M Ketcha; R Han; A Manbachi; S Vogt; G Kleinszig; J-P Wolinsky; G Osgood; J H Siewerdsen
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  A level-wise spine registration framework to account for large pose changes.

Authors:  Yunliang Cai; Shaoju Wu; Xiaoyao Fan; Jonathan Olson; Linton Evans; Scott Lollis; Sohail K Mirza; Keith D Paulsen; Songbai Ji
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 3.421

4.  Automatic pedicle screw planning using atlas-based registration of anatomy and reference trajectories.

Authors:  R Vijayan; T De Silva; R Han; X Zhang; A Uneri; S Doerr; M Ketcha; A Perdomo-Pantoja; N Theodore; J H Siewerdsen
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-08-21       Impact factor: 4.174

5.  Atlas-based automatic planning and 3D-2D fluoroscopic guidance in pelvic trauma surgery.

Authors:  R Han; A Uneri; T De Silva; M Ketcha; J Goerres; S Vogt; G Kleinszig; G Osgood; J H Siewerdsen
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-05-02       Impact factor: 4.174

6.  SpineCloud: image analytics for predictive modeling of spine surgery outcomes.

Authors:  Tharindu De Silva; S Swaroop Vedula; Alexander Perdomo-Pantoja; Rohan Vijayan; Sophia A Doerr; Ali Uneri; Runze Han; Michael D Ketcha; Richard L Skolasky; Timothy Witham; Nicholas Theodore; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-02-18

7.  Automated Pipeline to Generate Anatomically Accurate Patient-Specific Biomechanical Models of Healthy and Pathological FSUs.

Authors:  Sebastiano Caprara; Fabio Carrillo; Jess G Snedeker; Mazda Farshad; Marco Senteler
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2021-01-28

8.  The accuracy and effectiveness of automatic pedicle screw trajectory planning based on computer tomography values: an in vitro osteoporosis model study.

Authors:  Jia Bin Liu; Rui Zuo; Wen Jie Zheng; Chang Qing Li; Chao Zhang; Yue Zhou
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 2.362

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.