Koen Willemsen1,2, Mirte H M Ketel3, Frank Zijlstra4, Mateusz C Florkow4, Ruurd J A Kuiper3, Bart C H van der Wal3, Harrie Weinans3,5,6, Behdad Pouran7,8, Freek J Beekman7,8,9, Peter R Seevinck4, Ralph J B Sakkers3. 1. Department of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP:05-228, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. k.willemsen-4@umcutrecht.nl. 2. 3D Lab, Division of Surgical Specialties, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. k.willemsen-4@umcutrecht.nl. 3. Department of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP:05-228, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. 3D Lab, Division of Surgical Specialties, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. 7. MILabs B.V, Houten, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Translational Neuroscience, Brain Centre Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 9. Department Radiation Science & Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D)-printed saw guides are frequently used to optimize osteotomy results and are usually designed based on computed tomography (CT), despite the radiation burden, as radiation-less alternatives like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have inferior bone visualization capabilities. This study investigated the usability of MR-based synthetic-CT (sCT), a novel radiation-less bone visualization technique for 3D planning and design of patient-specific saw guides. METHODS: Eight human cadaveric lower arms (mean age: 78y) received MRI and CT scans as well as high-resolution micro-CT. From the MRI scans, sCT were generated using a conditional generative adversarial network. Digital 3D bone surface models based on the sCT and general CT were compared to the surface model from the micro-CT that was used as ground truth for image resolution. From both the sCT and CT digital bone models saw guides were designed and 3D-printed in nylon for one proximal and one distal bone position for each radius and ulna. Six blinded observers placed these saw guides as accurately as possible on dissected bones. The position of each guide was assessed by optical 3D-scanning of each bone with positioned saw guide and compared to the preplanning. Eight placement errors were evaluated: three translational errors (along each axis), three rotational errors (around each axis), a total translation (∆T) and a total rotation error (∆R). RESULTS: Surface models derived from micro-CT were on average smaller than sCT and CT-based models with average differences of 0.27 ± 0.30 mm for sCT and 0.24 ± 0.12 mm for CT. No statistically significant positioning differences on the bones were found between sCT- and CT-based saw guides for any axis specific translational or rotational errors nor between the ∆T (p = .284) and ∆R (p = .216). On Bland-Altman plots, the ∆T and ∆R limits of agreement (LoA) were within the inter-observer variability LoA. CONCLUSIONS: This research showed a similar error for sCT and CT digital surface models when comparing to ground truth micro-CT models. Additionally, the saw guide study showed equivalent CT- and sCT-based saw guide placement errors. Therefore, MRI-based synthetic CT is a promising radiation-less alternative to CT for the creation of patient-specific osteotomy surgical saw guides.
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D)-printed saw guides are frequently used to optimize osteotomy results and are usually designed based on computed tomography (CT), despite the radiation burden, as radiation-less alternatives like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have inferior bone visualization capabilities. This study investigated the usability of MR-based synthetic-CT (sCT), a novel radiation-less bone visualization technique for 3D planning and design of patient-specific saw guides. METHODS: Eight human cadaveric lower arms (mean age: 78y) received MRI and CT scans as well as high-resolution micro-CT. From the MRI scans, sCT were generated using a conditional generative adversarial network. Digital 3D bone surface models based on the sCT and general CT were compared to the surface model from the micro-CT that was used as ground truth for image resolution. From both the sCT and CT digital bone models saw guides were designed and 3D-printed in nylon for one proximal and one distal bone position for each radius and ulna. Six blinded observers placed these saw guides as accurately as possible on dissected bones. The position of each guide was assessed by optical 3D-scanning of each bone with positioned saw guide and compared to the preplanning. Eight placement errors were evaluated: three translational errors (along each axis), three rotational errors (around each axis), a total translation (∆T) and a total rotation error (∆R). RESULTS: Surface models derived from micro-CT were on average smaller than sCT and CT-based models with average differences of 0.27 ± 0.30 mm for sCT and 0.24 ± 0.12 mm for CT. No statistically significant positioning differences on the bones were found between sCT- and CT-based saw guides for any axis specific translational or rotational errors nor between the ∆T (p = .284) and ∆R (p = .216). On Bland-Altman plots, the ∆T and ∆R limits of agreement (LoA) were within the inter-observer variability LoA. CONCLUSIONS: This research showed a similar error for sCT and CT digital surface models when comparing to ground truth micro-CT models. Additionally, the saw guide study showed equivalent CT- and sCT-based saw guide placement errors. Therefore, MRI-based synthetic CT is a promising radiation-less alternative to CT for the creation of patient-specific osteotomy surgical saw guides.
Authors: J G G Dobbe; S D Strackee; A W Schreurs; R Jonges; B Carelsen; J C Vroemen; C A Grimbergen; G J Streekstra Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2010-10-07 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Burton Ma; Manuela Kunz; Braden Gammon; Randy E Ellis; David R Pichora Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Mark S Pearce; Jane A Salotti; Mark P Little; Kieran McHugh; Choonsik Lee; Kwang Pyo Kim; Nicola L Howe; Cecile M Ronckers; Preetha Rajaraman; Alan W Sir Craft; Louise Parker; Amy Berrington de González Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Beatrice Lena; Mateusz C Florkow; Cyril J Ferrer; Marijn van Stralen; Peter R Seevinck; Evert-Jan P A Vonken; Martijn F Boomsma; Derk J Slotman; Max A Viergever; Chrit T W Moonen; Clemens Bos; Lambertus W Bartels Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Jarosław Meyer-Szary; Marlon Souza Luis; Szymon Mikulski; Agastya Patel; Finn Schulz; Dmitry Tretiakow; Justyna Fercho; Kinga Jaguszewska; Mikołaj Frankiewicz; Ewa Pawłowska; Radosław Targoński; Łukasz Szarpak; Katarzyna Dądela; Robert Sabiniewicz; Joanna Kwiatkowska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 3.390
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