Skip to main content
2024 BMES Annual Meeting Main banner
Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.

Biomedical Imaging and Instrumentation

Biomedical Imaging and Instrumentation - Poster Session A

Poster G7 - Comparative Analysis of Hip and Knee Cadaver Segmentations from Weight-bearing and Commercial CT scanners

Thursday, October 24, 2024
10:00 AM - 11:00 AM EST
Location: Exhibit Hall E, F & G

Introduction:  Conventional CT scans have long been valued for their ability to provide precise cross-sectional images of the internal bone structure of the body in the context of surgical and diagnostic procedures. However, there are significant limitations to these scans, particularly with regard to alignment. In day-to-day settings, the bones undergo load whether it be from walking or standing. The inability of static CT images due to scans being taken in the prone position frequently results in less-than-ideal modeling which undermines future surgical and diagnostic outcomes. This hole features the earnest requirement for further developed imaging innovations that can offer a more precise portrayal of joint elements under load, hence helping better careful preparation and arrangement.

The anticipated rise in revision surgeries serves as further evidence that such advancements are needed right away. In particular, modification complete hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is supposed to increment from 43% to 70%, and correction absolute knee arthroplasty (rTKA) from 78% to 182% throughout the following five years. Presenting weight-bearing cone-beam CT (CBCT) scanners helps address a considerable lot of the difficulties presented by conventional CT checks. These scanners improve the accuracy of pre-operative modeling by allowing imaging under load-bearing conditions. This lowers the risk of misalignment and improves outcomes in post-surgical rehabilitation and diagnostic outcomes. The goal of this study is to prove that weight bearing CT scanners are as up to standard as commercial MDCT scanners.

Materials and

Methods:  Image Segmentation and Superimposition:
3D Slicer software was used to segment CT scans into STL files, which were then superimposed using CloudCompare software.

Study Groups:
Two groups were analyzed.
Manual Group: Segmentation performed by trained professionals.
Formus AI Group: Segmentation performed using Formus AI software.

Each group included scans under the following conditions:
Weight-bearing CBCT scan at standard dosage
Weight-bearing CBCT scan at large dosage
Normal MDCT scan

Bones Analyzed
The following bones were segmented and analyzed:
Hemi-Pelvis
FemurProx (proximal at hip)
FemurDist (distal at knee)
Tibia
Fibula
Patella

Procedure
Segmentation: CT scans were imported into 3D Slicer.
Manual Group: Segmentation was done manually.
Formus AI Group: Segmentation was done using Formus AI.
Superimposition: Segmented STL files were imported into CloudCompare, where the three scans (standard CBCT, large CBCT, and MDCT) were superimposed for comparison.
Analysis: The superimposed images were analyzed to assess alignment and discrepancies among the scanning modalities, evaluating the accuracy and reliability of weight-bearing CBCT compared to MDCT.

Results, Conclusions, and Discussions: Comparison of Standard (STD) and Large (LRG) Weight-Bearing STL Files
The comparison between standard and large dosage weight-bearing CBCT scans revealed several differences:
Time of Segmentation: There was a variation in the average time required for segmentation between the STD and LRG dosage scans.
Image Quality: Differences in image quality were observed, assessed based on the clarity and detail of the segmented STL files.
CloudCompare Statistical

Results: Statistical analysis using CloudCompare indicated differences in alignment and discrepancy values between the STD and LRG dosage scans.

Comparison to Commercial (Golden Standard) STL File
Both STD and LRG weight-bearing STL files were compared to a commercial (golden standard) STL file to evaluate their accuracy:
Similarity to Golden Standard: Variations in the degree of similarity to the golden standard were noted between the STD and LRG weight-bearing scans.
Statistical Analysis: CloudCompare's statistical analysis highlighted differences in accuracy and alignment with the golden standard between the STD and LRG scans.

Acknowledgements (Optional):