Literature DB >> 35278146

Spinopelvic measurements of sagittal balance with deep learning: systematic review and critical evaluation.

Tomaž Vrtovec1, Bulat Ibragimov2,3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To summarize and critically evaluate the existing studies for spinopelvic measurements of sagittal balance that are based on deep learning (DL).
METHODS: Three databases (PubMed, WoS and Scopus) were queried for records using keywords related to DL and measurement of sagittal balance. After screening the resulting 529 records that were augmented with specific web search, 34 studies published between 2017 and 2022 were included in the final review, and evaluated from the perspective of the observed sagittal spinopelvic parameters, properties of spine image datasets, applied DL methodology and resulting measurement performance.
RESULTS: Studies reported DL measurement of up to 18 different spinopelvic parameters, but the actual number depended on the image field of view. Image datasets were composed of lateral lumbar spine and whole spine X-rays, biplanar whole spine X-rays and lumbar spine magnetic resonance cross sections, and were increasing in size or enriched by augmentation techniques. Spinopelvic parameter measurement was approached either by landmark detection or structure segmentation, and U-Net was the most frequently applied DL architecture. The latest DL methods achieved excellent performance in terms of mean absolute error against reference manual measurements (~ 2° or ~ 1 mm).
CONCLUSION: Although the application of relatively complex DL architectures resulted in an improved measurement accuracy of sagittal spinopelvic parameters, future methods should focus on multi-institution and multi-observer analyses as well as uncertainty estimation and error handling implementations for integration into the clinical workflow. Further advances will enhance the predictive analytics of DL methods for spinopelvic parameter measurement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Deep learning; Predictive analytics; Sagittal balance; Spinopelvic measurements; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35278146     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07155-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   2.721


  50 in total

1.  Reproducibility and repeatability of a new computerized software for sagittal spinopelvic and scoliosis curvature radiologic measurements: Keops(®).

Authors:  C Maillot; E Ferrero; D Fort; C Heyberger; J-C Le Huec
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-02-28       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Current applications and future directions of deep learning in musculoskeletal radiology.

Authors:  Pauley Chea; Jacob C Mandell
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2019-08-04       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Sagittal balance of the spine.

Authors:  J C Le Huec; W Thompson; Y Mohsinaly; C Barrey; A Faundez
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Automated comprehensive Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis assessment using MVC-Net.

Authors:  Hongbo Wu; Chris Bailey; Parham Rasoulinejad; Shuo Li
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2018-05-18       Impact factor: 8.545

5.  A deep learning tool for fully automated measurements of sagittal spinopelvic balance from X-ray images: performance evaluation.

Authors:  Robert Korez; Michael Putzier; Tomaž Vrtovec
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  A review of methods for evaluating the quantitative parameters of sagittal pelvic alignment.

Authors:  Tomaž Vrtovec; Michiel M A Janssen; Boštjan Likar; René M Castelein; Max A Viergever; Franjo Pernuš
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  Validation of a new computer-assisted tool to measure spino-pelvic parameters.

Authors:  Renaud Lafage; Emmanuelle Ferrero; Jensen K Henry; Vincent Challier; Bassel Diebo; Barthelemy Liabaud; Virginie Lafage; Frank Schwab
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 8.  Artificial intelligence and machine learning in spine research.

Authors:  Fabio Galbusera; Gloria Casaroli; Tito Bassani
Journal:  JOR Spine       Date:  2019-03-05

9.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Authors:  Matthew J Page; Joanne E McKenzie; Patrick M Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C Hoffmann; Cynthia D Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Elie A Akl; Sue E Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Manoj M Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A McGuinness; Lesley A Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C Tricco; Vivian A Welch; Penny Whiting; David Moher
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2021-03-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.