Literature DB >> 33364259

MRI-based 3D models of the hip joint enables radiation-free computer-assisted planning of periacetabular osteotomy for treatment of hip dysplasia using deep learning for automatic segmentation.

Guodong Zeng1, Florian Schmaranzer2,3, Celia Degonda2, Nicolas Gerber1, Kate Gerber1, Moritz Tannast2,4, Jürgen Burger1, Klaus A Siebenrock2, Guoyan Zheng5, Till D Lerch2,3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Both Hip Dysplasia(DDH) and Femoro-acetabular-Impingement(FAI) are complex three-dimensional hip pathologies causing hip pain and osteoarthritis in young patients. 3D-MRI-based models were used for radiation-free computer-assisted surgical planning. Automatic segmentation of MRI-based 3D-models are preferred because manual segmentation is time-consuming.To investigate(1) the difference and(2) the correlation for femoral head coverage(FHC) between automatic MR-based and manual CT-based 3D-models and (3) feasibility of preoperative planning in symptomatic patients with hip diseases.
METHODS: We performed an IRB-approved comparative, retrospective study of 31 hips(26 symptomatic patients with hip dysplasia or FAI). 3D MRI sequences and CT scans of the hip were acquired. Preoperative MRI included axial-oblique T1 VIBE sequence(0.8 mm3 isovoxel) of the hip joint. Manual segmentation of MRI and CT scans were performed. Automatic segmentation of MRI-based 3D-models was performed using deep learning.
RESULTS: (1)The difference between automatic and manual segmentation of MRI-based 3D hip joint models was below 1 mm(proximal femur 0.2 ± 0.1 mm and acetabulum 0.3 ± 0.5 mm). Dice coefficients of the proximal femur and the acetabulum were 98 % and 97 %, respectively. (2)The correlation for total FHC was excellent and significant(r = 0.975, p < 0.001) between automatic MRI-based and manual CT-based 3D-models. Correlation for total FHC (r = 0.979, p < 0.001) between automatic and manual MR-based 3D models was excellent.(3)Preoperative planning and simulation of periacetabular osteotomy was feasible in all patients(100 %) with hip dysplasia or acetabular retroversion.
CONCLUSIONS: Automatic segmentation of MRI-based 3D-models using deep learning is as accurate as CT-based 3D-models for patients with hip diseases of childbearing age. This allows radiation-free and patient-specific preoperative simulation and surgical planning of periacetabular osteotomy for patients with DDH.
© 2020 The Authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ASD, Average Surface Distance; Automatic segmentation; DDH; DDH, developmental dysplasia of the hip; DOC, Dice Overlap Coefficients; Deep learning; FAI, Femoroacetabular Impingement; FHC, femoral head center; GPU, Graphics processing unit; Hip dysplasia; Hip joint; MRI; Machine learning; Magnetic resonance imaging; ROM, range of motion

Year:  2020        PMID: 33364259      PMCID: PMC7753932          DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2020.100303

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol Open        ISSN: 2352-0477


  56 in total

Review 1.  Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip.

Authors:  D Tönnis; A Heinecke
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Cam and pincer impingements rarely occur in isolation.

Authors:  Kwok-Man Tong; Tu-Sheng Lee; Yu-Min Lin; Christian W A Pfirrmann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Biomechanical validation of computer assisted planning of periacetabular osteotomy: A preliminary study based on finite element analysis.

Authors:  L Liu; T Ecker; L Xie; S Schumann; K Siebenrock; G Zheng
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 2.242

4.  What MRI Findings Predict Failure 10 Years After Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement?

Authors:  Markus S Hanke; Simon D Steppacher; Helen Anwander; Stefan Werlen; Klaus A Siebenrock; Moritz Tannast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Pincer-type MRI morphology seen in over a third of asymptomatic healthy volunteers without femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Susanne Bensler; Tobias J Dietrich; Veronika Zubler; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Reto Sutter
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-10-14       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Validation of scoring hip osteoarthritis with MRI (SHOMRI) scores using hip arthroscopy as a standard of reference.

Authors:  Jan Neumann; Alan L Zhang; Benedikt J Schwaiger; Michael A Samaan; Richard Souza; Sarah C Foreman; Gabby B Joseph; Trevor Grace; Sharmila Majumdar; Thomas M Link
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Prevalence of Femoral and Acetabular Version Abnormalities in Patients With Symptomatic Hip Disease: A Controlled Study of 538 Hips.

Authors:  Till D Lerch; Inga A S Todorski; Simon D Steppacher; Florian Schmaranzer; Stefan F Werlen; Klaus A Siebenrock; Moritz Tannast
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  Three-dimensional evaluation of acetabular coverage of the femoral head in normal hip joints and hip joints with acetabular dysplasia.

Authors:  T Mieno; N Konishi; Y Hasegawa; E Genda
Journal:  Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi       Date:  1992-01

Review 9.  Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for the diagnosis of hip femoroacetabular impingement/labral tear: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  M P Reiman; A P Goode; C E Cook; P Hölmich; K Thorborg
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 13.800

10.  Application of a deep learning algorithm for detection and visualization of hip fractures on plain pelvic radiographs.

Authors:  Chi-Tung Cheng; Tsung-Ying Ho; Tao-Yi Lee; Chih-Chen Chang; Ching-Cheng Chou; Chih-Chi Chen; I-Fang Chung; Chien-Hung Liao
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Real-world analysis of artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal trauma.

Authors:  Pranav Ajmera; Amit Kharat; Rajesh Botchu; Harun Gupta; Viraj Kulkarni
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-08-27

2.  MRI-based synthetic CT of the hip: can it be an alternative to conventional CT in the evaluation of osseous morphology?

Authors:  Lieve Morbée; Min Chen; Thomas Van Den Berghe; Eva Schiettecatte; Robert Gosselin; Nele Herregods; Lennart B O Jans
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-01-23       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Diagnosis of acetabular retroversion: Three signs positive and increased retroversion index have higher specificity and higher diagnostic accuracy compared to isolated positive cross over sign.

Authors:  Till D Lerch; Malin K Meier; Adam Boschung; Simon D Steppacher; Klaus A Siebenrock; Moritz Tannast; Florian Schmaranzer
Journal:  Eur J Radiol Open       Date:  2022-02-25

4.  Automated measurement of alpha angle on 3D-magnetic resonance imaging in femoroacetabular impingement hips: a pilot study.

Authors:  Nastassja Pamela Ewertowski; Christoph Schleich; Daniel Benjamin Abrar; Harish S Hosalkar; Bernd Bittersohl
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-07-30       Impact factor: 2.677

5.  Combined abnormalities of femoral version and acetabular version and McKibbin Index in FAI patients evaluated for hip preservation surgery.

Authors:  Till D Lerch; Tiziano Antioco; Malin K Meier; Adam Boschung; Markus S Hanke; Moritz Tannast; Klaus A Siebenrock; Florian Schmaranzer; Simon D Steppacher
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2022-04-21

6.  Biocompatibility of 3D-Printed PLA, PEEK and PETG: Adhesion of Bone Marrow and Peritoneal Lavage Cells.

Authors:  Stanislav Y Shilov; Yulia A Rozhkova; Lubov N Markova; Mikhail A Tashkinov; Ilya V Vindokurov; Vadim V Silberschmidt
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-22       Impact factor: 4.967

Review 7.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three-Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review.

Authors:  Mateusz C Florkow; Koen Willemsen; Vasco V Mascarenhas; Edwin H G Oei; Marijn van Stralen; Peter R Seevinck
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 5.119

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.