Key result
Intensity-based 2D/3D registration yields higher translational and rotational errors than manual fitting for femoral models.
Why the study?
Accurate quantification of in-vivo tibio-femoral kinematics from 2D single-plane fluoroscopic images remains challenging, necessitating evaluation of registration algorithms.
Intensity-based 2D/3D registration of knee videofluoroscopy data shows good in-plane accuracy but requires manual intervention for optimal out-of-plane accuracy.
Intensity-based registration yields reliable in-plane accuracy for knee videofluoroscopy; leaves open whether automated methods can match manual fitting without out-of-plane compromises.
The accurate quantification of in-vivo tibio-femoral kinematics is essential for understanding joint functionality, but determination of the 3D pose of bones from 2D single-plane fluoroscopic images remains challenging. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy, reliability and repeatability of an intensity-based 2D/3D registration algorithm. The accuracy was evaluated using fluoroscopic images of 2 radiopaque bones in 18 different poses, compared against a gold-standard fiducial calibration device. In addition, 3 natural femora and 3 natural tibiae were used to examine registration reliability and repeatability. Both manual fitting and intensity-based registration exhibited a mean absolute error of <1 mm in-plane. Overall, intensity-based registration of the femoral bone model revealed significantly higher translational and rotational errors than manual fitting, while no statistical differences (except for y-axis translation) were found for the tibial bone model. The repeatability of 108 intensity-based registrations showed mean in-plane standard deviations of 0.23-0.56 mm, but out-of-plane position repeatability was lower (mean SD: femur 7.98 mm, tibia 6.96 mm). SDs for rotations averaged 0.77-2.52°. While the algorithm registered some images extremely well, other images clearly required manual intervention. When the algorithm registered the bones repeatably, it was also accurate, suggesting an approach that includes manual intervention could become practical for efficient and accurate registration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Postolka et al. (2020) studied In-vivo tibio-femoral kinematics. Intensity-based 2D/3D registration algorithm vs. Manual fitting and gold-standard fiducial calibration device was evaluated on Accuracy, reliability and repeatability of 2D/3D registration. Intensity-based 2D/3D registration exhibited <1 mm in-plane mean absolute error but had significantly higher translational and rotational errors than manual fitting for the femoral bone model.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: