Cargando…

Three-dimensional ultrasound for knee osteophyte depiction: a comparative study to computed tomography

PURPOSE: Osteophytes are common radiographic markers of osteoarthritis. However, they are not accurately depicted using conventional imaging, thus hampering surgical interventions that rely on pre-operative images. Studies have shown that ultrasound (US) is promising at detecting osteophytes and mon...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vendries, Valeria, Ungi, Tamas, Harry, Jordan, Kunz, Manuela, Podlipská, Jana, MacKenzie, Les, Venne, Gabriel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580923/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34313914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02456-4
_version_ 1784596704190791680
author Vendries, Valeria
Ungi, Tamas
Harry, Jordan
Kunz, Manuela
Podlipská, Jana
MacKenzie, Les
Venne, Gabriel
author_facet Vendries, Valeria
Ungi, Tamas
Harry, Jordan
Kunz, Manuela
Podlipská, Jana
MacKenzie, Les
Venne, Gabriel
author_sort Vendries, Valeria
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Osteophytes are common radiographic markers of osteoarthritis. However, they are not accurately depicted using conventional imaging, thus hampering surgical interventions that rely on pre-operative images. Studies have shown that ultrasound (US) is promising at detecting osteophytes and monitoring the progression of osteoarthritis. Furthermore, three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound reconstructions may offer a means to quantify osteophytes. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of osteophyte depiction in the knee joint between 3D US and conventional computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Eleven human cadaveric knees were pre-screened for the presence of osteophytes. Three osteoarthritic knees were selected, and then, 3D US and CT images were obtained, segmented, and digitally reconstructed in 3D. After dissection, high-resolution structured light scanner (SLS) images of the joint surfaces were obtained. Surface matching and root mean square (RMS) error analyses of surface distances were performed to assess the accuracy of each modality in capturing osteophytes. The RMS errors were compared between 3D US, CT and SLS models. RESULTS: Average RMS error comparisons for 3D US versus SLS and CT versus SLS models were 0.87 mm ± 0.33 mm (average ± standard deviation) and 0.95 mm ± 0.32 mm, respectively. No statistical difference was found between 3D US and CT. Comparative observations of imaging modalities suggested that 3D US better depicted osteophytes with cartilage and fibrocartilage tissue characteristics compared to CT. CONCLUSION: Using 3D US can improve the depiction of osteophytes with a cartilaginous portion compared to CT. It can also provide useful information about the presence and extent of osteophytes. Whilst algorithm improvements for automatic segmentation and registration of US are needed to provide a more robust investigation of osteophyte depiction accuracy, this investigation puts forward the potential application for 3D US in routine diagnostic evaluations and pre-operative planning of osteoarthritis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8580923
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85809232021-11-15 Three-dimensional ultrasound for knee osteophyte depiction: a comparative study to computed tomography Vendries, Valeria Ungi, Tamas Harry, Jordan Kunz, Manuela Podlipská, Jana MacKenzie, Les Venne, Gabriel Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Original Article PURPOSE: Osteophytes are common radiographic markers of osteoarthritis. However, they are not accurately depicted using conventional imaging, thus hampering surgical interventions that rely on pre-operative images. Studies have shown that ultrasound (US) is promising at detecting osteophytes and monitoring the progression of osteoarthritis. Furthermore, three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound reconstructions may offer a means to quantify osteophytes. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of osteophyte depiction in the knee joint between 3D US and conventional computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Eleven human cadaveric knees were pre-screened for the presence of osteophytes. Three osteoarthritic knees were selected, and then, 3D US and CT images were obtained, segmented, and digitally reconstructed in 3D. After dissection, high-resolution structured light scanner (SLS) images of the joint surfaces were obtained. Surface matching and root mean square (RMS) error analyses of surface distances were performed to assess the accuracy of each modality in capturing osteophytes. The RMS errors were compared between 3D US, CT and SLS models. RESULTS: Average RMS error comparisons for 3D US versus SLS and CT versus SLS models were 0.87 mm ± 0.33 mm (average ± standard deviation) and 0.95 mm ± 0.32 mm, respectively. No statistical difference was found between 3D US and CT. Comparative observations of imaging modalities suggested that 3D US better depicted osteophytes with cartilage and fibrocartilage tissue characteristics compared to CT. CONCLUSION: Using 3D US can improve the depiction of osteophytes with a cartilaginous portion compared to CT. It can also provide useful information about the presence and extent of osteophytes. Whilst algorithm improvements for automatic segmentation and registration of US are needed to provide a more robust investigation of osteophyte depiction accuracy, this investigation puts forward the potential application for 3D US in routine diagnostic evaluations and pre-operative planning of osteoarthritis. Springer International Publishing 2021-07-27 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8580923/ /pubmed/34313914 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02456-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Vendries, Valeria
Ungi, Tamas
Harry, Jordan
Kunz, Manuela
Podlipská, Jana
MacKenzie, Les
Venne, Gabriel
Three-dimensional ultrasound for knee osteophyte depiction: a comparative study to computed tomography
title Three-dimensional ultrasound for knee osteophyte depiction: a comparative study to computed tomography
title_full Three-dimensional ultrasound for knee osteophyte depiction: a comparative study to computed tomography
title_fullStr Three-dimensional ultrasound for knee osteophyte depiction: a comparative study to computed tomography
title_full_unstemmed Three-dimensional ultrasound for knee osteophyte depiction: a comparative study to computed tomography
title_short Three-dimensional ultrasound for knee osteophyte depiction: a comparative study to computed tomography
title_sort three-dimensional ultrasound for knee osteophyte depiction: a comparative study to computed tomography
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580923/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34313914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02456-4
work_keys_str_mv AT vendriesvaleria threedimensionalultrasoundforkneeosteophytedepictionacomparativestudytocomputedtomography
AT ungitamas threedimensionalultrasoundforkneeosteophytedepictionacomparativestudytocomputedtomography
AT harryjordan threedimensionalultrasoundforkneeosteophytedepictionacomparativestudytocomputedtomography
AT kunzmanuela threedimensionalultrasoundforkneeosteophytedepictionacomparativestudytocomputedtomography
AT podlipskajana threedimensionalultrasoundforkneeosteophytedepictionacomparativestudytocomputedtomography
AT mackenzieles threedimensionalultrasoundforkneeosteophytedepictionacomparativestudytocomputedtomography
AT vennegabriel threedimensionalultrasoundforkneeosteophytedepictionacomparativestudytocomputedtomography