Cargando…
Comparison of Different Approaches for Measuring Tibial Cartilage Thickness
Osteoarthritis is a degenerative disease affecting bones and cartilage especially in the human knee. In this context, cartilage thickness is an indicator for knee cartilage health. Thickness measurements are performed on medical images acquired in-vivo. Currently, there is no standard method agreed...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
De Gruyter
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6042828/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28753537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jib-2017-0015 |
_version_ | 1783339229646946304 |
---|---|
author | Maier, Jennifer Black, Marianne Bonaretti, Serena Bier, Bastian Eskofier, Bjoern Choi, Jang-Hwan Levenston, Marc Gold, Garry Fahrig, Rebecca Maier, Andreas |
author_facet | Maier, Jennifer Black, Marianne Bonaretti, Serena Bier, Bastian Eskofier, Bjoern Choi, Jang-Hwan Levenston, Marc Gold, Garry Fahrig, Rebecca Maier, Andreas |
author_sort | Maier, Jennifer |
collection | PubMed |
description | Osteoarthritis is a degenerative disease affecting bones and cartilage especially in the human knee. In this context, cartilage thickness is an indicator for knee cartilage health. Thickness measurements are performed on medical images acquired in-vivo. Currently, there is no standard method agreed upon that defines a distance measure in articular cartilage. In this work, we present a comparison of different methods commonly used in literature. These methods are based on nearest neighbors, surface normal vectors, local thickness and potential field lines. All approaches were applied to manual segmentations of tibia and lateral and medial tibial cartilage performed by experienced raters. The underlying data were contrast agent-enhanced cone-beam C-arm CT reconstructions of one healthy subject’s knee. The subject was scanned three times, once in supine position and two times in a standing weight-bearing position. A comparison of the resulting thickness maps shows similar distributions and high correlation coefficients between the approaches above 0.90. The nearest neighbor method results on average in the lowest cartilage thickness values, while the local thickness approach assigns the highest values. We showed that the different methods agree in their thickness distribution. The results will be used for a future evaluation of cartilage change under weight-bearing conditions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6042828 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | De Gruyter |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60428282019-01-28 Comparison of Different Approaches for Measuring Tibial Cartilage Thickness Maier, Jennifer Black, Marianne Bonaretti, Serena Bier, Bastian Eskofier, Bjoern Choi, Jang-Hwan Levenston, Marc Gold, Garry Fahrig, Rebecca Maier, Andreas J Integr Bioinform Research Articles Osteoarthritis is a degenerative disease affecting bones and cartilage especially in the human knee. In this context, cartilage thickness is an indicator for knee cartilage health. Thickness measurements are performed on medical images acquired in-vivo. Currently, there is no standard method agreed upon that defines a distance measure in articular cartilage. In this work, we present a comparison of different methods commonly used in literature. These methods are based on nearest neighbors, surface normal vectors, local thickness and potential field lines. All approaches were applied to manual segmentations of tibia and lateral and medial tibial cartilage performed by experienced raters. The underlying data were contrast agent-enhanced cone-beam C-arm CT reconstructions of one healthy subject’s knee. The subject was scanned three times, once in supine position and two times in a standing weight-bearing position. A comparison of the resulting thickness maps shows similar distributions and high correlation coefficients between the approaches above 0.90. The nearest neighbor method results on average in the lowest cartilage thickness values, while the local thickness approach assigns the highest values. We showed that the different methods agree in their thickness distribution. The results will be used for a future evaluation of cartilage change under weight-bearing conditions. De Gruyter 2017-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6042828/ /pubmed/28753537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jib-2017-0015 Text en ©2017, Jennifer Maier et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Maier, Jennifer Black, Marianne Bonaretti, Serena Bier, Bastian Eskofier, Bjoern Choi, Jang-Hwan Levenston, Marc Gold, Garry Fahrig, Rebecca Maier, Andreas Comparison of Different Approaches for Measuring Tibial Cartilage Thickness |
title | Comparison of Different Approaches for Measuring Tibial Cartilage Thickness |
title_full | Comparison of Different Approaches for Measuring Tibial Cartilage Thickness |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Different Approaches for Measuring Tibial Cartilage Thickness |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Different Approaches for Measuring Tibial Cartilage Thickness |
title_short | Comparison of Different Approaches for Measuring Tibial Cartilage Thickness |
title_sort | comparison of different approaches for measuring tibial cartilage thickness |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6042828/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28753537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jib-2017-0015 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT maierjennifer comparisonofdifferentapproachesformeasuringtibialcartilagethickness AT blackmarianne comparisonofdifferentapproachesformeasuringtibialcartilagethickness AT bonarettiserena comparisonofdifferentapproachesformeasuringtibialcartilagethickness AT bierbastian comparisonofdifferentapproachesformeasuringtibialcartilagethickness AT eskofierbjoern comparisonofdifferentapproachesformeasuringtibialcartilagethickness AT choijanghwan comparisonofdifferentapproachesformeasuringtibialcartilagethickness AT levenstonmarc comparisonofdifferentapproachesformeasuringtibialcartilagethickness AT goldgarry comparisonofdifferentapproachesformeasuringtibialcartilagethickness AT fahrigrebecca comparisonofdifferentapproachesformeasuringtibialcartilagethickness AT maierandreas comparisonofdifferentapproachesformeasuringtibialcartilagethickness |