Virtual 3D femur model to assess femoral version: comparison to the 2D axial slice approach

Iwasaka-Neder, Jade; Bixby, Sarah D; Bedoya, M Alejandra; Liu, Enju; Jarrett, Delma Y; Agahigian, Donna; Tsai, Andy

doi:10.1007/s00247-023-05758-8

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This approach differs from the evaluation strategies used in studies advocating for 3D femoral analysis. In such studies, the effectiveness of a novel 3D femoral rotation assessor is juxtaposed with conventional 2D analysis [ 4 , 5 , 8 , 12 , 25 ]. For example, in Iwasaka–Neder et al [ 12 ], the reliability of the assessment of femoral torsion through a 3D femur model is compared to Murphy's 2D axial technique [ 22 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In such studies, the effectiveness of a novel 3D femoral rotation assessor is juxtaposed with conventional 2D analysis [ 4 , 5 , 8 , 12 , 25 ]. For example, in Iwasaka–Neder et al [ 12 ], the reliability of the assessment of femoral torsion through a 3D femur model is compared to Murphy's 2D axial technique [ 22 ]. Another study by Brooks et al [ 4 ] introduced a 3D analysis for measuring the femoral version, and they compared their approach to the 2D technique described by Reikerås et al [ 26 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A surface registration‐based approach for assessment of 3D angles in guided growth interventions in the growing femur

Gholinezhad,

Rasmussen,

Halloum

et al. 2024

J. exp. orthop.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposePostoperative assessment of surgical interventions for correcting femoral rotational deformities necessitates a comparative analysis of femoral rotation pre‐ and post‐surgery. While 2D assessment methods are commonly employed, ongoing debate surrounds their accuracy and reliability. To address the limitations associated with 2D analysis, we introduced and validated a 3D model‐based analysis method for quantifying the angular and rotational impact of corrective rotational osteotomy in the growing femur.MethodsThe method is based on surface registration of the pre‐ and post‐intervention 3D femoral models. To this end, 3D triangulated surface models were generated using CT images for the right femurs of 11 skeletally immature pigs, each scanned at two distinct time points with a 12‐week interval between scans. In our validation procedures, femoral corrective rotational osteotomy of the post‐12‐week femur was simulated at varying angles of 5, 10, 15 and 20 degrees in three dimensions. Subsequently, a surface 3D/3D registration‐based approach was applied to determine the 3D femoral angulation and rotation between the two models to assess the method's detection accuracy of the predefined twist angles as ground truth references.ResultsThe results document the precision and accuracy of the registration‐based method in evaluating rotation angles. Consistently high accuracy was observed across all angles, with an accuracy rate of 92.97% and a coefficient of variance of 8.14%.ConclusionThis study has showcased the potential for improving post‐operative assessments with significant implications for experimental studies evaluating the effects of correcting rotational deformities in the growing femur.Level of EvidenceNot applicable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A surface registration‐based approach for assessment of 3D angles in guided growth interventions in the growing femur

Gholinezhad,

Rasmussen,

Halloum

et al. 2024

J. exp. orthop.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Computed tomography‐based automated 3D measurement of femoral version: Validation against standard 2D measurements in symptomatic patients

Schmaranzer,

Movahhedi,

Singh

et al. 2024

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To validate 3D methods for femoral version measurement, we asked: (1) Can a fully automated segmentation of the entire femur and 3D measurement of femoral version using a neck based method and a head‐shaft based method be performed? (2) How do automatic 3D‐based computed tomography (CT) measurements of femoral version compare to the most commonly used 2D‐based measurements utilizing four different landmarks? Retrospective study (May 2017 to June 2018) evaluating 45 symptomatic patients (57 hips, mean age 18.7 ± 5.1 years) undergoing pelvic and femoral CT. Femoral version was assessed using four previously described methods (Lee, Reikeras, Tomczak, and Murphy). Fully‐automated segmentation yielded 3D femur models used to measure femoral version via femoral neck‐ and head‐shaft approaches. Mean femoral version with 95% confidence intervals, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated, and Bland‐Altman analysis was performed. Automatic 3D segmentation was highly accurate, with mean dice coefficients of 0.98 ± 0.03 and 0.97 ± 0.02 for femur/pelvis, respectively. Mean difference between 3D head‐shaft‐ (27.4 ± 16.6°) and 3D neck methods (12.9 ± 13.7°) was 14.5 ± 10.7° (p < 0.001). The 3D neck method was closer to the proximal Lee (−2.4 ± 5.9°, −4.4 to 0.5°, p = 0.009) and Reikeras (2 ± 5.6°, 95% CI: 0.2 to 3.8°, p = 0.03) methods. The 3D head‐shaft method was closer to the distal Tomczak (−1.3 ± 7.5°, 95% CI: −3.8 to 1.1°, p = 0.57) and Murphy (1.5 ± 5.4°, −0.3 to 3.3°, p = 0.12) methods. Automatic 3D neck‐based‐/head‐shaft methods yielded femoral version angles comparable to the proximal/distal 2D‐based methods, when applying fully‐automated segmentations.

show abstract

Virtual 3D femur model to assess femoral version: comparison to the 2D axial slice approach

Cited by 2 publications

References 45 publications

A surface registration‐based approach for assessment of 3D angles in guided growth interventions in the growing femur

A surface registration‐based approach for assessment of 3D angles in guided growth interventions in the growing femur

Computed tomography‐based automated 3D measurement of femoral version: Validation against standard 2D measurements in symptomatic patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About