Accuracy of pelvic bone segmentation for 3d printing: a study of segmentation accuracy based on anatomic landmarks to evaluate the influence of the observer.
3D printing
Accuracy
Inter-observer reliability
Landmarks
Pelvic bones
Point of care
Quality assurance
Segmentation
Journal
3D printing in medicine
ISSN: 2365-6271
Titre abrégé: 3D Print Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721758
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Oct 2024
08 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
30
03
2024
accepted:
25
09
2024
medline:
8
10
2024
pubmed:
8
10
2024
entrez:
8
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
3D printing has a wide range of applications and has brought significant change to many medical fields. However, ensuring quality assurance (QA) is essential for patient safety and requires a QA program that encompasses the entire production process. This process begins with imaging and continues on with segmentation, which is the conversion of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data into virtual 3D-models. Since segmentation is highly influenced by manual intervention the influence of the users background on segmentation accuracy should be thoroughly investigated. Seventeen computed tomography (CT) scans of the pelvis with physiological bony structures were identified, anonymized, exported as DICOM data sets, and pelvic bones were segmented by four observers with different backgrounds. Landmarks were measured on DICOM images and in the segmentations. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess inter-observer agreement, and the trueness of the segmentation results was analyzed by comparing the DICOM landmark measurements with the measurements of the segmentation results. The correlation between segmentation trueness and segmentation time was analyzed. The lower limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the ICCs for the seven landmarks analyzed ranged from 0.511 to 0.986. The distance between the iliac crests showed the highest agreement between observers, while the distance between the ischial tuberosities showed the lowest. The distance between the upper edge of the symphysis and the promontory showed the lowest deviation between DICOM measurements and segmentation measurements (mean deviations < 1 mm), while the intertuberous distance showed the highest deviation (mean deviations 14.5-18.2 mm). Investigators with diverse backgrounds in segmentation and varying experience with slice images achieved pelvic bone segmentations with landmark measurements of mostly high agreement in a setup with high realism. In contrast, high variability was observed in the segmentation of the coccyx. In general, interobserver agreement was high, but due to measurement inaccuracies, landmark-based approaches cannot conclusively show that segmentation accuracy is within a clinically tolerable range of 2 mm for the pelvis. If the segmentation is performed by a very inexperienced user, the result should be reviewed critically by the clinician in charge.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
3D printing has a wide range of applications and has brought significant change to many medical fields. However, ensuring quality assurance (QA) is essential for patient safety and requires a QA program that encompasses the entire production process. This process begins with imaging and continues on with segmentation, which is the conversion of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data into virtual 3D-models. Since segmentation is highly influenced by manual intervention the influence of the users background on segmentation accuracy should be thoroughly investigated.
METHODS
METHODS
Seventeen computed tomography (CT) scans of the pelvis with physiological bony structures were identified, anonymized, exported as DICOM data sets, and pelvic bones were segmented by four observers with different backgrounds. Landmarks were measured on DICOM images and in the segmentations. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess inter-observer agreement, and the trueness of the segmentation results was analyzed by comparing the DICOM landmark measurements with the measurements of the segmentation results. The correlation between segmentation trueness and segmentation time was analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The lower limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the ICCs for the seven landmarks analyzed ranged from 0.511 to 0.986. The distance between the iliac crests showed the highest agreement between observers, while the distance between the ischial tuberosities showed the lowest. The distance between the upper edge of the symphysis and the promontory showed the lowest deviation between DICOM measurements and segmentation measurements (mean deviations < 1 mm), while the intertuberous distance showed the highest deviation (mean deviations 14.5-18.2 mm).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Investigators with diverse backgrounds in segmentation and varying experience with slice images achieved pelvic bone segmentations with landmark measurements of mostly high agreement in a setup with high realism. In contrast, high variability was observed in the segmentation of the coccyx. In general, interobserver agreement was high, but due to measurement inaccuracies, landmark-based approaches cannot conclusively show that segmentation accuracy is within a clinically tolerable range of 2 mm for the pelvis. If the segmentation is performed by a very inexperienced user, the result should be reviewed critically by the clinician in charge.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39377850
doi: 10.1186/s41205-024-00237-8
pii: 10.1186/s41205-024-00237-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
33Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
M. Schulze, G. Gosheger, S. Bockholt, M. de Vaal, T. Budny, M. Tönnemann, J. Pützler, A.S. Bövingloh, R. Rischen, V. Hofbauer, T. Lübben, N. Deventer, H. Ahrens, Complex Bone Tumors of the Trunk-The Role of 3D Printing and Navigation in Tumor Orthopedics: A Case Series and Review of the Literature, J. Pers. Med. 11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11060517 .
A. Valls-Esteve, A. Tejo-Otero, P. Lustig-Gainza, I. Buj-Corral, F. Fenollosa-Artés, J. Rubio-Palau, I. La Barber-Martinez de Torre, J. Munuera, C. Fondevila, L. Krauel, Patient-Specific 3D Printed Soft Models for Liver Surgical Planning and Hands-On Training, Gels 9 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/gels9040339 .
Omar M, Schulze M, Bruns N, Kotrych D, Gosheger G, Ettinger M. Update 3D-Druck in der Chirurgie muskuloskeletaler Tumoren. Unfallchirurg. 2022;125:361–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-022-01160-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s00113-022-01160-5
pubmed: 35312794
Kotrych D, Angelini A, Bohatyrewicz A, Ruggieri P. 3D printing for patient-specific implants in musculoskeletal oncology. EFORT Open Rev. 2023;8:331–9. https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-23-0066 .
doi: 10.1530/EOR-23-0066
pubmed: 37158428
pmcid: 10233802
Wong A, Goonewardene MS, Allan BP, Mian AS, Rea A. Accuracy of maxillary repositioning surgery using CAD/CAM customized surgical guides and fixation plates. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;50:494–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.08.009 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.08.009
pubmed: 32919821
Yang C, Zhang C, Wu J, Xu X, Zhang Y, Zhang S. Three-Dimensional Printed Customized Surgical Guides for the Precise Correction of Complex Midfacial Post-Traumatic Deformities. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33:1150–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000008329 .
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000008329
pubmed: 36041109
Molinari G, Emiliani N, Cercenelli L, Bortolani B, Gironi C, Fernandez IJ, Presutti L, Marcelli E. Assessment of a novel patient-specific 3D printed multi-material simulator for endoscopic sinus surgery. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:974021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.974021 .
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.974021
pubmed: 36466346
pmcid: 9712453
V.G. Chedid, A.A. Kamath, J. M Knudsen, K. Frimannsdottir, K.J. Yost, J. R Geske, J.M. Morris, T. Taner, J.M. Matsumoto, P.S. Kamath, Three-Dimensional-Printed Liver Model Helps Learners Identify Hepatic Subsegments: A Randomized-Controlled Cross-Over Trial, Am. J. Gastroenterol. 115 (2020) 1906–1910. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000000958 .
Grab M, Hundertmark F, Thierfelder N, Fairchild M, Mela P, Hagl C, Grefen L. New perspectives in patient education for cardiac surgery using 3D-printing and virtual reality. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023;10:1092007. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1092007 .
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1092007
pubmed: 36937915
pmcid: 10020687
Joseph FJ, Vanluchene HER, Goldberg J, Bervini D. 3D-Printed Head Model in Patient’s Education for Micro-Neurosurgical Aneurysm Clipping Procedures. World Neurosurg. 2023;175:e1069–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2023.04.070 .
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.04.070
pubmed: 37087042
Yammine K, Karbala J, Maalouf A, Daher J, Assi C. Clinical outcomes of the use of 3D printing models in fracture management: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;48:3479–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-021-01758-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s00068-021-01758-1
pubmed: 34383092
J. Meyer-Szary, M.S. Luis, S. Mikulski, A. Patel, F. Schulz, D. Tretiakow, J. Fercho, K. Jaguszewska, M. Frankiewicz, E. Pawłowska, R. Targoński, Ł. Szarpak, K. Dądela, R. Sabiniewicz, J. Kwiatkowska, The Role of 3D Printing in Planning Complex Medical Procedures and Training of Medical Professionals-Cross-Sectional Multispecialty Review, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063331 .
Chepelev L, Wake N, Ryan J, Althobaity W, Gupta A, Arribas E, Santiago L, Ballard DH, Wang KC, Weadock W, Ionita CN, Mitsouras D, Morris J, Matsumoto J, Christensen A, Liacouras P, Rybicki FJ, Sheikh A. Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 3D printing Special Interest Group (SIG): guidelines for medical 3D printing and appropriateness for clinical scenarios, 3D Print. Med. 2018;4:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-018-0030-y .
doi: 10.1186/s41205-018-0030-y
Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin J-C, Pujol S, Bauer C, Jennings D, Fennessy F, Sonka M, Buatti J, Aylward S, Miller JV, Pieper S, Kikinis R. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30:1323–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001
pubmed: 22770690
pmcid: 3466397
Paton C, Braa J, Muhire A, Marco-Ruiz L, Kobayashi S, Fraser H, Falcón L, Marcelo A. Open Source Digital Health Software for Resilient, Accessible and Equitable Healthcare Systems, Yearb. Med Inform. 2022;31:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1742508 .
doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1742508
M. Schulze, L. Juergensen, R. Rischen, M. Toennemann, G. Reischle, J. Puetzler, G. Gosheger, J. Hasselmann, Quality assurance of 3D-printed patient specific anatomical models: a systematic review, 3D Print Med 10 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-024-00210-5 .
Nishikawa S, Miki M, Chigusa Y, Furuta M, Kido A, Kawamura Y, Ueda Y, Mandai M, Mogami H. Obstetric pelvimetry by three-dimensional computed tomography in non-pregnant Japanese women: a retrospective single-center study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2023;36:2190444. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2023.2190444 .
doi: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2190444
pubmed: 36927362
Tresch C, Lallemant M, Nallet C, Offringa Y, Ramanah R, Guerby P, Mottet N. Updating of pelvimetry standards in modern obstetrics. Sci Rep. 2024;14:3080. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53603-1 .
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-53603-1
pubmed: 38321054
pmcid: 10847410
International Organization for Standardization, Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results — Part 2: Basic method for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement method, International Organization for Standardization, 2019. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:5725:-2:ed-2:v1:en .
Bonett DG. Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Stat Med. 2002;21:1331–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1108 .
doi: 10.1002/sim.1108
pubmed: 12111881
L. Jürgensen, 3D Slicer Tutorial: Pelvic Bone Segmentation, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHYRPCKRtNU . Accessed 26 Mar 2024.
Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
pubmed: 27330520
pmcid: 4913118
Aubry S, Padoin P, Petegnief Y, Vidal C, Riethmuller D, Delabrousse E. Can three-dimensional pelvimetry using low-dose stereoradiography replace low-dose CT pelvimetry?, Diagn. Interv. Imaging. 2018;99:569–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2018.02.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2018.02.008
Capelle C, Devos P, Caudrelier C, Verpillat P, Fourquet T, Puech P, Garabedian C, Lemaitre L. How reproducible are classical and new CT-pelvimetry measurements?, Diagn. Interv. Imaging. 2020;101:79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2019.07.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2019.07.011
Keller TM, Rake A, Michel SCA, Seifert B, Efe G, Treiber K, Huch R, Marincek B, Kubik-Huch RA. Obstetric MR pelvimetry: reference values and evaluation of inter- and intraobserver error and intraindividual variability. Radiology. 2003;227:37–43. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2271011658 .
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2271011658
pubmed: 12601187
Anderson N, Humphries N, Wells JE. Measurement error in computed tomography pelvimetry. Australas Radiol. 2005;49:104–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2005.01417.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.2005.01417.x
pubmed: 15845044
Jamali AA, Deuel C, Perreira A, Salgado CJ, Hunter JC, Strong EB. Linear and angular measurements of computer-generated models: are they accurate, valid, and reliable? Comput Aided Surg. 2007;12:278–85. https://doi.org/10.3109/10929080701680265 .
doi: 10.3109/10929080701680265
pubmed: 17957535
L. Brouwers, A. Teutelink, van Tilborg, Fiek A J B, de Jongh, Mariska A C, K.W.W. Lansink, M. Bemelman, Validation study of 3D-printed anatomical models using 2 PLA printers for preoperative planning in trauma surgery, a human cadaver study, Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 45 (2019) 1013–1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-018-0970-3 .
Chen Z, Wang Y, Li X, Wang K, Li Z, Yang P. An automatic measurement system of distal femur morphological parameters using 3D slicer software. Bone. 2022;156:116300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2021.116300 .
doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2021.116300
pubmed: 34958998
A. Lo Giudice, V. Ronsivalle, G. Gastaldi, R. Leonardi, Assessment of the accuracy of imaging software for 3D rendering of the upper airway, usable in orthodontic and craniofacial clinical settings, Prog. Orthod. 23 (2022) 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00413-8 .
Stock MK, Garvin HM, Corron LK, Hulse CN, Cirillo LE, Klales AR, Colman KL, Stull KE. The importance of processing procedures and threshold values in CT scan segmentation of skeletal elements: An example using the immature os coxa. Forensic Sci Int. 2020;309:110232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110232 .
doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110232
pubmed: 32151881
van Eijnatten M, Koivisto J, Karhu K, Forouzanfar T, Wolff J. The impact of manual threshold selection in medical additive manufacturing. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017;12:607–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1490-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s11548-016-1490-4
pubmed: 27718124
Cho HS, Oh JH, Han I, Kim H-S. The outcomes of navigation-assisted bone tumour surgery: minimum three-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:1414–20. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B10.28638 .
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B10.28638
pubmed: 23015571
Dionísio FCF, Oliveira LS, Hernandes MA, Engel EE, Rangayyan RM, Azevedo-Marques PM, Nogueira-Barbosa MH. Manual and semiautomatic segmentation of bone sarcomas on MRI have high similarity. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2020;53:e8962. https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X20198962 .
doi: 10.1590/1414-431X20198962
pubmed: 32022102
pmcid: 6993358
Matsiushevich K, Belvedere C, Leardini A, Durante S. Quantitative comparison of freeware software for bone mesh from DICOM files. J Biomech. 2019;84:247–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.12.031 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.12.031
pubmed: 30591203
D.A. Salazar, J. Cramer, N.W. Markin, N.H. Hunt, G. Linke, J. Siebler, J. Zuniga, Comparison of 3D printed anatomical model qualities in acetabular fracture representation, Ann. Transl. Med. 10 (2022) 391. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-5069 .
J.H.D. Fasel, J. Beinemann, K. Schaller, H.-O. Peitgen, Computer Science Tools for Manual Editing of Computed Tomographic Images: Impact on the Quality of 3D Printed Models, SS 05 (2014) 439–443. https://doi.org/10.4236/ss.2014.510068 .
Park J-K, Choi S-M, Kang S-W, Kim K-J, Min K-T. Three-dimensional measurement of the course of the radial nerve at the posterior humeral shaft: An in vivo anatomical study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2020;28:2309499020930828. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499020930828 .
doi: 10.1177/2309499020930828
pubmed: 32627674
A. Colombo, G. Saia, A.A. Azzena, A. Rossi, F. Zugni, P. Pricolo, P.E. Summers, G. Marvaso, R. Grimm, M. Bellomi, B.A. Jereczek-Fossa, A.R. Padhani, G. Petralia, Semi-Automated Segmentation of Bone Metastases from Whole-Body MRI: Reproducibility of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Measurements, Diagnostics (Basel) 11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11030499 .
Gitto S, Cuocolo R, Emili I, Tofanelli L, Chianca V, Albano D, Messina C, Imbriaco M, Sconfienza LM. Effects of Interobserver Variability on 2D and 3D CT- and MRI-Based Texture Feature Reproducibility of Cartilaginous Bone Tumors. J Digit Imaging. 2021;34:820–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-021-00498-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s10278-021-00498-3
pubmed: 34405298
pmcid: 8455795
M. Imani, E. Bani Hassan, S. Vogrin, A.S.T.N. Ch'Ng, N.E. Lane, J.A. Cauley, G. Duque, Validation of a Semiautomatic Image Analysis Software for the Quantification of Musculoskeletal Tissues, Calcif. Tissue Int. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-021-00914-4 .
Misselyn D, Caeyman A, Hoekstra H, Nijs S, Matricali G. Intra- and inter-observer reliability of measurements on 3D images of the calcaneus bone. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2021;24:579–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2020.1841174 .
doi: 10.1080/10255842.2020.1841174
pubmed: 33118845