Impact of bone and cartilage segmentation from CT and MRI on both bone forearm osteotomy planning.

INTRODUCTION: The use of MRI scans for pre-operative surgical planning of forearm osteotomies provides additional information of joint cartilage and soft tissue structures and reduces radiation exposure in comparison with the use of CT scans. In this study, we investigated whether using 3D information obtained from MRI with and without cartilage information leads to a different outcome of pre-operative planning. METHODS: Bilateral CT and MRI scans of the forearms of 10 adolescent and young adult patients with a unilateral bone deformation were acquired in a prospective study. The bones were segmented from CT and MRI, and cartilage only from MRI. The deformed bones were virtually reconstructed, by registering the joint ends to the healthy contralateral side. An optimal osteotomy plane was determined that minimized the distance between the resulting fragments. This process was performed in threefold: using the CT and MRI bone segmentations, and the MRI cartilage segmentations. RESULTS: Comparison of bone segmentation from MRI and CT scan resulted in a 0.95 ± 0.02 Dice Similarity Coefficient and 0.42 ± 0.07 mm Mean Absolute Surface Distance. All realignment parameters showed excellent reliability across the different segmentations. However, the mean differences in translational realignment between CT and MRI bone segmentations (4.5 ± 2.1 mm) and between MRI bone and MRI bone and cartilage segmentations (2.8 ± 2.1 mm) were shown to be clinically and statistically significant. A significant positive correlation was found between the translational realignment and the relative amount of cartilage. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that although bone realignment remained largely similar when using MRI with and without cartilage information compared to using CT, the small differences in segmentation could induce statistically and clinically significant differences in the osteotomy planning. We also showed that endochondral cartilage might be a non-negligible factor when planning osteotomies for young patients.

Automatic Assessment of Lower-Limb Alignment from Computed Tomography.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative planning of lower-limb realignment surgical procedures necessitates the quantification of alignment parameters by using landmarks placed on medical scans. Conventionally, alignment measurements are performed on 2-dimensional (2D) standing radiographs. To enable fast and accurate 3-dimensional (3D) planning of orthopaedic surgery, automatic calculation of the lower-limb alignment from 3D bone models is required. The goal of this study was to develop, validate, and apply a method that automatically quantifies the parameters defining lower-limb alignment from computed tomographic (CT) scans. METHODS: CT scans of the lower extremities of 50 subjects were both manually and automatically segmented. Thirty-two manual landmarks were positioned twice on the bone segmentations to assess intraobserver reliability in a subset of 20 subjects. The landmarks were also positioned automatically using a shape-fitting algorithm. The landmarks were then used to calculate 25 angles describing the lower-limb alignment for all 50 subjects. RESULTS: The mean absolute difference (and standard deviation) between repeat measurements using the manual method was 2.01 ± 1.64 mm for the landmark positions and 1.05° ± 1.48° for the landmark angles, whereas the mean absolute difference between the manual and fully automatic methods was 2.17 ± 1.37 mm for the landmark positions and 1.10° ± 1.16° for the landmark angles. The manual method required approximately 60 minutes of manual interaction, compared with 12 minutes of computation time for the fully automatic method. The intraclass correlation coefficient showed good to excellent reliability between the manual and automatic assessments for 23 of 25 angles, and the same was true for the intraobserver reliability in the manual method. The mean for the 50 subjects was within the expected range for 18 of the 25 automatically calculated angles. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a method that automatically calculated a comprehensive range of 25 measurements that defined lower-limb alignment in considerably less time, and with differences relative to the manual method that were comparable to the differences between repeated manual assessments. This method could thus be used as an efficient alternative to manual assessment of alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.