Aleš Neubert1, Katharine J Wilson2, Craig Engstrom3, Rachel K Surowiec2, Anthony Paproki4, Nicholas Johnson2, Stuart Crozier5, Jurgen Fripp6, Charles P Ho2. 1. The Australian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Brisbane, Australia; School of Information Technology & Electrical Engineering, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: ales.neubert@uqconnect.edu.au. 2. Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, CO, USA. 3. School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 4. The Australian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Brisbane, Australia; School of Information Technology & Electrical Engineering, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 5. School of Information Technology & Electrical Engineering, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 6. The Australian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine whether magnetic resonance (MR) imaging can offer a viable alternative to computed tomography (CT) based 3D bone modeling. METHODS: CT and MR (SPACE, TrueFISP, VIBE) images were acquired from the left knee joint of a fresh-frozen cadaver. The distal femur, proximal tibia, proximal fibula and patella were manually segmented from the MR and CT examinations. The MR bone models obtained from manual segmentations of all three sequences were compared to CT models using a similarity measure based on absolute mesh differences. RESULTS: The average absolute distance between the CT and the various MR-based bone models were all below 1mm across all bones. The VIBE sequence provided the best agreement with the CT model, followed by the SPACE, then the TrueFISP data. The most notable difference was for the proximal tibia (VIBE 0.45mm, SPACE 0.82mm, TrueFISP 0.83mm). CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that 3D MR bone models may offer a feasible alternative to traditional CT-based modeling. A single radiological examination using the MR imaging would allow simultaneous assessment of both bones and soft-tissues, providing anatomically comprehensive joint models for clinical evaluation, without the ionizing radiation of CT imaging.
PURPOSE: To examine whether magnetic resonance (MR) imaging can offer a viable alternative to computed tomography (CT) based 3D bone modeling. METHODS: CT and MR (SPACE, TrueFISP, VIBE) images were acquired from the left knee joint of a fresh-frozen cadaver. The distal femur, proximal tibia, proximal fibula and patella were manually segmented from the MR and CT examinations. The MR bone models obtained from manual segmentations of all three sequences were compared to CT models using a similarity measure based on absolute mesh differences. RESULTS: The average absolute distance between the CT and the various MR-based bone models were all below 1mm across all bones. The VIBE sequence provided the best agreement with the CT model, followed by the SPACE, then the TrueFISP data. The most notable difference was for the proximal tibia (VIBE 0.45mm, SPACE 0.82mm, TrueFISP 0.83mm). CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that 3D MR bone models may offer a feasible alternative to traditional CT-based modeling. A single radiological examination using the MR imaging would allow simultaneous assessment of both bones and soft-tissues, providing anatomically comprehensive joint models for clinical evaluation, without the ionizing radiation of CT imaging.
Keywords:
3D bone modeling; Computed tomography; FOV − field of view; FROI − focused region of interest; Knee; MR − magnetic resonance; Magnetic resonance imaging; Patient specific templatesCT − computed tomography
Authors: Giovanni Foti; William Mantovani; Niccolò Faccioli; Giacomo Crivellari; Luigi Romano; Claudio Zorzi; Giovanni Carbognin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Thomas D Alter; Derrick M Knapik; Martina Guidetti; Alejandro Espinoza; Jorge Chahla; Shane J Nho; Philip Malloy Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Carly A Lockard; Ingrid K Stake; Alex W Brady; Madeleine G DeClercq; Kira K Tanghe; Brenton W Douglass; Erik Nott; Charles P Ho; Thomas O Clanton Journal: Cartilage Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Thomas D Alter; Philip Malloy; Alex C Newhouse; Sunikom Suppauksorn; Alejandro Espinzoa Orias; Jorge Chahla; Nozomu Inoue; Shane J Nho Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2021-09-27