Cargando…

Comparison of tibial alignment parameters based on clinically relevant anatomical landmarks: a deep learning radiological analysis

AIMS: Accurate identification of the ankle joint centre is critical for estimating tibial coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of the current study was to leverage artificial intelligence (AI) to determine the accuracy and effect of using different radiological anatomical...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jang, Seong J., Kunze, Kyle N., Brilliant, Zachary R., Henson, Melissa, Mayman, David J., Jerabek, Seth A., Vigdorchik, Jonathan M., Sculco, Peter K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9626868/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36196596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0082.R1
_version_ 1784822826421714944
author Jang, Seong J.
Kunze, Kyle N.
Brilliant, Zachary R.
Henson, Melissa
Mayman, David J.
Jerabek, Seth A.
Vigdorchik, Jonathan M.
Sculco, Peter K.
author_facet Jang, Seong J.
Kunze, Kyle N.
Brilliant, Zachary R.
Henson, Melissa
Mayman, David J.
Jerabek, Seth A.
Vigdorchik, Jonathan M.
Sculco, Peter K.
author_sort Jang, Seong J.
collection PubMed
description AIMS: Accurate identification of the ankle joint centre is critical for estimating tibial coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of the current study was to leverage artificial intelligence (AI) to determine the accuracy and effect of using different radiological anatomical landmarks to quantify mechanical alignment in relation to a traditionally defined radiological ankle centre. METHODS: Patients with full-limb radiographs from the Osteoarthritis Initiative were included. A sub-cohort of 250 radiographs were annotated for landmarks relevant to knee alignment and used to train a deep learning (U-Net) workflow for angle calculation on the entire database. The radiological ankle centre was defined as the midpoint of the superior talus edge/tibial plafond. Knee alignment (hip-knee-ankle angle) was compared against 1) midpoint of the most prominent malleoli points, 2) midpoint of the soft-tissue overlying malleoli, and 3) midpoint of the soft-tissue sulcus above the malleoli. RESULTS: A total of 932 bilateral full-limb radiographs (1,864 knees) were measured at a rate of 20.63 seconds/image. The knee alignment using the radiological ankle centre was accurate against ground truth radiologist measurements (inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.99 (0.98 to 0.99)). Compared to the radiological ankle centre, the mean midpoint of the malleoli was 2.3 mm (SD 1.3) lateral and 5.2 mm (SD 2.4) distal, shifting alignment by 0.34(o) (SD 2.4(o)) valgus, whereas the midpoint of the soft-tissue sulcus was 4.69 mm (SD 3.55) lateral and 32.4 mm (SD 12.4) proximal, shifting alignment by 0.65(o) (SD 0.55(o)) valgus. On the intermalleolar line, measuring a point at 46% (SD 2%) of the intermalleolar width from the medial malleoli (2.38 mm medial adjustment from midpoint) resulted in knee alignment identical to using the radiological ankle centre. CONCLUSION: The current study leveraged AI to create a consistent and objective model that can estimate patient-specific adjustments necessary for optimal landmark usage in extramedullary and computer-guided navigation for tibial coronal alignment to match radiological planning. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):767–776.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9626868
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96268682022-11-07 Comparison of tibial alignment parameters based on clinically relevant anatomical landmarks: a deep learning radiological analysis Jang, Seong J. Kunze, Kyle N. Brilliant, Zachary R. Henson, Melissa Mayman, David J. Jerabek, Seth A. Vigdorchik, Jonathan M. Sculco, Peter K. Bone Jt Open Knee AIMS: Accurate identification of the ankle joint centre is critical for estimating tibial coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of the current study was to leverage artificial intelligence (AI) to determine the accuracy and effect of using different radiological anatomical landmarks to quantify mechanical alignment in relation to a traditionally defined radiological ankle centre. METHODS: Patients with full-limb radiographs from the Osteoarthritis Initiative were included. A sub-cohort of 250 radiographs were annotated for landmarks relevant to knee alignment and used to train a deep learning (U-Net) workflow for angle calculation on the entire database. The radiological ankle centre was defined as the midpoint of the superior talus edge/tibial plafond. Knee alignment (hip-knee-ankle angle) was compared against 1) midpoint of the most prominent malleoli points, 2) midpoint of the soft-tissue overlying malleoli, and 3) midpoint of the soft-tissue sulcus above the malleoli. RESULTS: A total of 932 bilateral full-limb radiographs (1,864 knees) were measured at a rate of 20.63 seconds/image. The knee alignment using the radiological ankle centre was accurate against ground truth radiologist measurements (inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.99 (0.98 to 0.99)). Compared to the radiological ankle centre, the mean midpoint of the malleoli was 2.3 mm (SD 1.3) lateral and 5.2 mm (SD 2.4) distal, shifting alignment by 0.34(o) (SD 2.4(o)) valgus, whereas the midpoint of the soft-tissue sulcus was 4.69 mm (SD 3.55) lateral and 32.4 mm (SD 12.4) proximal, shifting alignment by 0.65(o) (SD 0.55(o)) valgus. On the intermalleolar line, measuring a point at 46% (SD 2%) of the intermalleolar width from the medial malleoli (2.38 mm medial adjustment from midpoint) resulted in knee alignment identical to using the radiological ankle centre. CONCLUSION: The current study leveraged AI to create a consistent and objective model that can estimate patient-specific adjustments necessary for optimal landmark usage in extramedullary and computer-guided navigation for tibial coronal alignment to match radiological planning. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):767–776. The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2022-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9626868/ /pubmed/36196596 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0082.R1 Text en © 2022 Author(s) et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
spellingShingle Knee
Jang, Seong J.
Kunze, Kyle N.
Brilliant, Zachary R.
Henson, Melissa
Mayman, David J.
Jerabek, Seth A.
Vigdorchik, Jonathan M.
Sculco, Peter K.
Comparison of tibial alignment parameters based on clinically relevant anatomical landmarks: a deep learning radiological analysis
title Comparison of tibial alignment parameters based on clinically relevant anatomical landmarks: a deep learning radiological analysis
title_full Comparison of tibial alignment parameters based on clinically relevant anatomical landmarks: a deep learning radiological analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of tibial alignment parameters based on clinically relevant anatomical landmarks: a deep learning radiological analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of tibial alignment parameters based on clinically relevant anatomical landmarks: a deep learning radiological analysis
title_short Comparison of tibial alignment parameters based on clinically relevant anatomical landmarks: a deep learning radiological analysis
title_sort comparison of tibial alignment parameters based on clinically relevant anatomical landmarks: a deep learning radiological analysis
topic Knee
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9626868/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36196596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0082.R1
work_keys_str_mv AT jangseongj comparisonoftibialalignmentparametersbasedonclinicallyrelevantanatomicallandmarksadeeplearningradiologicalanalysis
AT kunzekylen comparisonoftibialalignmentparametersbasedonclinicallyrelevantanatomicallandmarksadeeplearningradiologicalanalysis
AT brilliantzacharyr comparisonoftibialalignmentparametersbasedonclinicallyrelevantanatomicallandmarksadeeplearningradiologicalanalysis
AT hensonmelissa comparisonoftibialalignmentparametersbasedonclinicallyrelevantanatomicallandmarksadeeplearningradiologicalanalysis
AT maymandavidj comparisonoftibialalignmentparametersbasedonclinicallyrelevantanatomicallandmarksadeeplearningradiologicalanalysis
AT jerabeksetha comparisonoftibialalignmentparametersbasedonclinicallyrelevantanatomicallandmarksadeeplearningradiologicalanalysis
AT vigdorchikjonathanm comparisonoftibialalignmentparametersbasedonclinicallyrelevantanatomicallandmarksadeeplearningradiologicalanalysis
AT sculcopeterk comparisonoftibialalignmentparametersbasedonclinicallyrelevantanatomicallandmarksadeeplearningradiologicalanalysis