| Literature DB >> 34589137 |
Jiashi Zhao1,2, Huatao Ge1, Wei He1,2, Yanfang Li1,2, Weili Shi1,2, Zhengang Jiang1,2, Yonghui Li1, Xingzhi Li3.
Abstract
Trigeminal neuralgia is a neurological disease. It is often treated by puncturing the trigeminal nerve through the skin and the oval foramen of the skull to selectively destroy the pain nerve. The process of puncture operation is difficult because the morphology of the foramen ovale in the skull base is varied and the surrounding anatomical structure is complex. Computer-aided puncture guidance technology is extremely valuable for the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia. Computer-aided guidance can help doctors determine the puncture target by accurately locating the foramen ovale in the skull base. Foramen ovale segmentation is a prerequisite for locating but is a tedious and error-prone task if done manually. In this paper, we present an image segmentation solution based on the multiatlas method that automatically segments the foramen ovale. We developed a data set of 30 CT scans containing 20 foramen ovale atlas and 10 CT scans for testing. Our approach can perform foramen ovale segmentation in puncture operation scenarios based solely on limited data. We propose to utilize this method as an enabler in clinical work.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34589137 PMCID: PMC8476260 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5221111
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Bottom view of the skull base.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of multiatlas segmentation method.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of multiresolution registration.
Figure 4A set of the atlas manually segmented.
Figure 5Manual segmentation and the results of segmentation of the foramen ovale structure of the skull base by various algorithms. (a) Segmentation result on the left. (b) Segmentation result on the right. Number 1 is manually segmented images, number 2 is MV algorithm segmentation image, number 3 is STAPLE algorithm segmentation image, and number 4 is SIMPLE algorithm segmentation image.
Figure 6Comparison of the results of each method and manual segmentation. (a) Comparison between segmentation method and manual segmentation on the left. (b) Comparison between segmentation method and manual segmentation on the right. Number 1 is a comparison between MV algorithm and manual segmentation, number 2 is a comparison between STAPLE algorithm and manual segmentation, and number 3 is a comparison between SIMPLE algorithm and manual segmentation.
Dice average of segmentation results of different methods.
| Dice | Left foramen ovale | Right foramen ovale |
|---|---|---|
| MV | 0.790 | 0.803 |
| STAPLE | 0.858 | 0.870 |
| SIMPLE | 0.853 | 0.871 |
The average value of 95%Hausdorff distance of the segmentation results of different methods.
| 95%Hausdorff distance | Left foramen ovale | Right foramen ovale |
|---|---|---|
| MV | 5.054 | 3.639 |
| STAPLE | 4.274 | 3.452 |
| SIMPLE | 4.644 | 3.227 |
Average surface distance average of segmentation results of different methods.
| ASD | Left foramen ovale | Right foramen ovale |
|---|---|---|
| MV | 1.258 | 0.933 |
| STAPLE | 0.998 | 0.739 |
| SIMPLE | 1.067 | 0.728 |
Figure 7Dice box plots of the foramen ovale on the left and right sides of each method: (a) foramen ovale box plot on the left; (b) foramen ovale box plot on the right.
Figure 8Box plot of the 95% Hausdorff distance of the foramen ovale on the left and right sides of each method: (a) foramen ovale box plot on the left; (b) foramen ovale box plot on the right.
Figure 9Box plot of the average surface distance of the foramen ovale on the left and right sides of each calculation method: (a) foramen ovale box plot on the left; (b) foramen ovale box plot on the right.