4.5 Article

Three-dimensional surface rendering reconstruction of scoliotic vertebrae using a non stereo-corresponding points technique

期刊

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 344-352

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-002-0432-8

关键词

scoliosis; 3D reconstruction; surface rendering; stereoradiography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The medical imaging techniques that allow a three-dimensional (31)) surface rendering reconstruction, which is usually required by the clinician when dealing with scoliotic patients, are computed tomography (CT) and stereoradiography. However, CT cannot provide a 3D rendering of the whole spine because of the high irradiating dose, while the stereoradiographic 3D reconstruction techniques, which use an algorithm derived from the direct linear transformation (DLT), are usually limited in accuracy because of the small number of corresponding anatomical landmarks identifiable on both radiographs. The purpose of the present study is to validate a recent biplanar 3D surface rendering reconstruction technique on scoliotic vertebrae. This technique, called non stereo-corresponding points (NSCP), has already been tested on non-pathologic dry cervical vertebrae and frozen lumbar specimens, and the results have proved very encouraging. Since scoliosis is a 3D deformity of the vertebrae and of the global spine, such a technique could be a very useful clinical tool for the diagnostic, follow-up and surgical planning when dealing with scoliotic patients. The validation of the NSCP technique on scoliotic patients was performed on 58 scoliotic vertebrae in 14 patients, by comparison with the CT scan 3D rendering technique. The results of (his study show mean errors of 1.5 tran. On the basis of this study, we can conclude that the NSCP 3D reconstruction technique is a definite improvement over existing techniques, and can serve as a useful diagnosis tool in scoliosis. However, the results of the technique still need to be optimized for use in geometrical modeling.

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

4.5
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