1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging generates accurate 3D proximal femoral models: Surgical planning implications for femoroacetabular impingement.
FAI
clinical
diagnostic imaging
hip
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society
ISSN: 1554-527X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8404726
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
19
09
2019
revised:
10
12
2019
accepted:
13
01
2020
pubmed:
25
1
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
entrez:
25
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The objective of this study was to validate three-dimensional (3D) proximal femoral surface models generated from a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by comparing these 3D models to those derived from the clinical "gold standard" of computed tomography (CT) scan and to ground-truth surface models obtained by laser scans (LSs) of the excised femurs. Four intact bilateral cadaveric pelvis specimens underwent CT and MRI scans and 3D surface models were generated. Six femurs were extracted from these specimens, and the overlying soft tissues were removed. The extracted femurs were then laser scanned to produce a ground-truth surface model. A 3D-3D registration method was used to compare the signed and absolute surface-to-surface distances between the 3D models. Absolute agreement was evaluated using a 95% confidence interval (CI) derived from the precision of the LS ground-truth. Paired samples t tests and Kolmogrov-Smirnov tests were performed to compare the differences between the signed and absolute surface-to-surface distances between the models. The average signed surface-to-surface distances for the MRI vs LS and MRI vs CT models were 0.07 and 0.16 mm, respectively. These differences fell within the 95% CI of ±0.20 mm indicating absolute agreement between the surface models generated from these modalities. The signed surface-to-surface distance was significantly smaller for MRI vs LS ground truth model as compared with the CT vs LS model. Femoral models derived from a 1.5 T MRI scan demonstrated absolute agreement with the clinical gold standard of CT-derived models and were most like LS ground truth models of the excised femurs.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2050-2056Informations de copyright
© 2020 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Griffin DR, Dickenson EJ, O'Donnell J, et al. The warwick agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:1169-1176.
Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis-what the radiologist should know. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1540-1552.
Barton C, Salineros MJ, Rakhra KS, Beaulé PE. Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:464-469.
Kang RW, Yanke AB, Orias AE, Inoue N, Nho SJ. Emerging ideas: novel 3-D quantification and classification of cam lesions in patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:358-362.
Bedi A, Dolan M, Magennis E, Lipman J, Buly R, Kelly BT. Computer-assisted modeling of osseous impingement and resection in femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2012;28:204-210.
Heyworth BE, Dolan MM, Nguyen JT, Chen NC, Kelly BT. Preoperative three-dimensional CT predicts intraoperative findings in hip arthroscopy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:1950-1957.
Beaulé PE, Zaragoza E, Motamedi K, Copelan N, Dorey FJ. Three-dimensional computed tomography of the hip in the assessment of femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res. 2005;23:1286-1292.
Milone MT, Bedi A, Poultsides L, et al. Novel CT-based three-dimensional software improves the characterization of cam morphology. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2484-2491.
Khan O, Witt J. Evaluation of the magnitude and location of cam deformity using three dimensional CT analysis. Bone Joint J. 2014;96:1167-1171.
Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE, et al. American college of radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4:272-284.
Cibere J, Russell D, Qian H, et al. Significant association of radiographic femoroacetabular impingement with early MRI features of hip disease: a population-based study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016;24:S22-S23.
Ito K, Minka-II M, Leunig M, Werlen S, Ganz R. Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect: a MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:171-176.
James SLJ, Ali K, Malara F, Young D, O'Donnell J, Connell DA. MRI findings of femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1412-1419.
Pfirrmann CWA, Mengiardi B, Dora C, Kalberer F, Zanetti M, Hodler J. Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients. Radiology. 2006;240:778-785.
Tresch F, Dietrich TJ, Pfirrmann CW, Sutter R. Hip MRI: prevalence of articular cartilage defects and labral tears in asymptomatic volunteers. A comparison with a matched population of patients with femoroacetabular impingement. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;46:440-451.
Breighner RE, Endo Y, Konin GP, Gulotta LV, Koff MF, Potter HG. Technical developments: zero echo time imaging of the shoulder: enhanced osseous detail by using MR imaging. Radiology. 2017;286:960-966.
Gyftopoulos S, Yemin A, Mulholland T, et al. 3DMR osseous reconstructions of the shoulder using a gradient-echo based two-point dixon reconstruction: a feasibility study. Skeletal Radiol. 2013;42:347-352.
Samim M, Eftekhary N, Vigdorchik JM, et al. 3D-MRI versus 3D-CT in the evaluation of osseous anatomy in femoroacetabular impingement using dixon 3D FLASH sequence. Skeletal Radiol. 2018:1-8.
Radetzki F, Saul B, Hagel A, et al. Three-dimensional virtual simulation and evaluation of the femoroacetabular impingement based on “black bone” MRA. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135:667-671.
Neubert A, Wilson KJ, Engstrom C, et al. Comparison of 3D bone models of the knee joint derived from CT and 3T MR imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2017;93:178-184.
Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). part II: on 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:270-274.
Rathnayaka K, Momot KI, Noser H, et al. Quantification of the accuracy of MRI generated 3D models of long bones compared to CT generated 3D models. Med Eng Phys. 2012;34:357-363.
Agricola R, Waarsing JH, Arden NK, et al. Cam impingement of the hip-a risk factor for hip osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2013;9:630-634.
Agricola R, Reijman M, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Verhaar JAN, Weinans H, Waarsing JH. Total hip replacement but not clinical osteoarthritis can be predicted by the shape of the hip: a prospective cohort study (CHECK). Osteoarthr Cartilage. 2013;21:559-564.
Ross JR, Larson CM, Adeoyo O, Kelly BT, Bedi A. Residual deformity is the most common reason for revision hip arthroscopy: a three-dimensional CT study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1388-1395.
Lansdown DA, Cvetanovich GL, Verma NN, et al. Automated 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging allows for accurate evaluation of glenoid bone loss compared with 3-dimensional computed tomography. Arthroscopy. 2019;35:734-740.
Ochia RS, Inoue N, Renner SM, et al. Three-dimensional in vivo measurement of lumbar spine segmental motion. Spine. 2006;31:2073-2078.
Wylie JD, Jenkins PA, Beckmann JT, Peters CL, Aoki SK, Maak TG. Computed tomography scans in patients with young adult hip pain carry a lifetime risk of malignancy. Arthroscopy. 2018;34:155-163.
Griffin JW, Weber AE, Kuhns B, Lewis P, Nho SJ. Imaging in hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: a comprehensive approach. Clin Sports Med. 2016;35:331-344.
Riley GM, McWalter EJ, Stevens KJ, Safran MR, Lattanzi R, Gold GE. MRI of the hip for the evaluation of femoroacetabular impingement; past, present, and future. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41:558-572.
Ng KG, Lamontagne M, Labrosse MR, Beaulé PE. Comparison of anatomical parameters of cam femoroacetabular impingement to evaluate hip joint models segmented from CT data. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2018;6:293-302.
Ng KG, Rouhi G, Lamontagne M, Beaulé PE. Finite element analysis examining the effects of cam FAI on hip joint mechanical loading using subject-specific geometries during standing and maximum squat. HSS J. 2012;8:206-212.
Ng KG, Lamontagne M, Labrosse MR, Beaulé PE. Hip joint stresses due to cam-type femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review of finite element simulations. PLOS One. 2016;11:e0147813.
Larson CM, Giveans MR, Samuelson KM, Stone RM, Bedi A. Arthroscopic hip revision surgery for residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) surgical outcomes compared with a matched cohort after primary arthroscopic FAI correction. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:1785-1790.
Cvetanovich GL, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, Bach BR, Bush-Joseph CA, Nho SJ. Revision hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of diagnoses, operative findings, and outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2015;31:1382-1390.
Deniz CM, Xiang S, Hallyburton RS, et al. Segmentation of the proximal femur from MR images using deep convolutional neural networks. Sci Rep. 2018;8:16485.