4.4 Article

3D reconstruction of the spine from biplanar X-rays using parametric models based on transversal and longitudinal inferences

期刊

MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 681-687

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2009.01.003

关键词

Biplanar X-rays; Spine; Scoliosis; 3D reconstruction; Longitudinal and transversal inferences

资金

  1. CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France)
  2. ETS Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Montreal, Canada)
  3. Biospace med company (Paris, France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reconstruction methods from biplanar X-rays provide 3D analysis of spinal deformities for patients in standing position with a low radiation dose. However, such methods require an important reconstruction time and there is a clinical need for fast and accurate techniques. This study proposes and evaluates a novel reconstruction method of the spine from biplanar X-rays. The approach uses parametric models based on longitudinal and transversal inferences. A first reconstruction level, dedicated to routine clinical use, allows to get a fast estimate (reconstruction time: 2 min 30 s) of the 3D reconstruction and accurate clinical measurements. The clinical measurements precision (evaluated on asymptomatic subjects, moderate and severe scolioses) was between 1.21 and 5.6 degrees. For a more accurate 3D reconstruction (complex pathologies or research purposes), a second reconstruction level can be obtained within a reduced reconstruction time (10 min) with a fine adjustment of the 3D models. The mean shape accuracy in comparison with CT-scan was 1.0 mm. The 3D reconstruction method precision was 1.8 mm for the vertebrae position and between 2.3 degrees and 3.9 degrees for the orientation. With a reduced reconstruction time, an improved accuracy and precision and a method proposing two reconstruction levels, this approach is efficient for both clinical routine uses and research purposes. (C) 2009 IPEM. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据