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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maier, Jennifer, Black, Marianne, Bonaretti, Serena, Bier, Bastian, Eskofier, Bjoern, Choi, Jang-Hwan, Levenston, Marc, Gold, Garry, Fahrig, Rebecca, Maier, Andreas
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