Advertisement

Application of Photogrammetry in Biomedical Science

  • Ronja Struck
  • Sara Cordoni
  • Sofia Aliotta
  • Laura Pérez-Pachón
  • Flora GröningEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1120)

Abstract

Photogrammetry is an upcoming technology in biomedical science as it provides a non-invasive and cost-effective alternative to established 3D imaging techniques such as computed tomography. This review introduces the photogrammetry approaches currently used for digital 3D reconstruction in biomedical science and discusses their suitability for different applications. It aims to offer the reader a better understanding of photogrammetry as a 3D reconstruction technique and to provide some guidance on how to choose the appropriate photogrammetry approach for their research area (including single- versus multi-camera setups, structure-from-motion versus conventional photogrammetry and macro- versus microphotogrammetry) as well as guidance on how to obtain high-quality data. This review highlights some key advantages of photogrammetry for a variety of applications in biomedical science, but it also discusses the limitations of this technique and the importance of taking steps to obtain high-quality images for accurate 3D reconstruction.

Keywords

Digital 3D reconstruction Multi-camera setup Structure-from-motion stereophotogrammetry Microphotogrammetry Medicine 

References

  1. Baghaie A, Tafti AP, Owen HA et al (2017) Three-dimensional reconstruction of highly complex microscopic samples using scanning electron microscopy and optical flow estimation. PLOS One 12(4):e0175078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball A, Job P, Walker A (2017) SEM-microphotogrammetry, a new take on an old method for generating high-resolution 3D models from SEM images. J Microsc 267:214–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandler JH, Buckley S (2016) Structure from motion (SFM) photogrammetry vs terrestrial laser scanning. In: Geoscience handbook 2016: AGI data sheets, 5th edn. American Geosciences Institute, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  4. Estes J, Kline K, Collins E (2001) Remote sensing. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Elsevier Science Ltd, pp 13144–13150Google Scholar
  5. Eulitz M, Reiss G (2015) 3D reconstruction of SEM images by use of optical photogrammetry software. J Struct Biol 191:190–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evin A, Souter T, Hulme-Beaman A et al (2016) The use of close-range photogrammetry in zooarchaeology: creating accurate 3D models of wolf crania to study dog domestication. J Archaeol Sci Rep 9:87–93Google Scholar
  7. Ey-Chmielewska H, Chruściel-Nogalska M, Frączak B (2015) Photogrammetry and its potential application in medical science on the basis of selected literature. Adv Clin Exp Med 24:737–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Faith D, Horsfield CJ, Nazarov W (2006) Characterization of pore size of trimethylol propane triacrylate (TMPTA) polymer foam by pulsed sputter coating and SEM analysis. J Mater Sci 41:3973–3977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibelli D, Pucciarelli V, Poppa P et al (2018) Three-dimensional facial anatomy evaluation: reliability of laser scanner consecutive scans procedure in comparison with stereophotogrammetry. J Cranio-Maxillofac SurgGoogle Scholar
  10. Glon F, Flys O, Lööf P-J, Rosén B-G (2014) 3D SEM for surface topography quantification – a case study on dental surfaces. J Phys Conf Ser 483(1)Google Scholar
  11. Griffith EM, Danilatos GD (1993) Environmental scanning electron microscopy. Wiley-Liss, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Habib A, Detchev I, Kwak E (2014) Stability analysis for a multi-camera photogrammetric system. Sensors 14:15084–15112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hermans DJJ, Maal TJJ, Bergé SJ, Van Der Vleuten CJM (2013) Three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry: a novel method in volumetric measurement of infantile hemangioma. Pediatr Dermatol 31:118–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hernandez A, Lemaire E (2016) A smartphone photogrammetry method for digitizing prosthetic socket interiors. Prosthetics Orthot Int 41:210–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lane HB (1983) Photogrammetry in medicine. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 49:1453–1456Google Scholar
  16. Leipner A, Baumeister R, Thali MJ, Braun M, Dobler E, Ebert LC (2016) Multi-camera system for 3D forensic documentation. Forensic Sci Int 261:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu X-J, Li Q-Q, Pang Y-J et al (2015) Modified method of recording and reproducing natural head position with a multicamera system and a laser level. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 147:781–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luhmann T, Robson S, Kyle S (2006) Close range photogrammetry: principles, techniques and applications. Whittles Publishing, DunbeathGoogle Scholar
  19. Marčiš M (2013) Quality of 3D models generated by SFM technology. Slovak J Civil Eng 21:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Meara SM, Bland JM, Dumville JC, Cullum NA (2012) A systematic review of the performance of instruments designed to measure the dimensions of pressure ulcers. Wound Repair Regen 20:263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Petriceks AH, Peterson AS, Angeles M, Brown WP, Saktii Srivastava S (2018) Photogrammetry of human specimens: an innovation in anatomy education. J Med Educ Curric Dev 5, Jan-Dec 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6144583/
  22. Probst A, Gatziolis D, Strigul N (2018) Intercomparison of photogrammetry software for three-dimensional vegetation modelling. R Soc Open Sci 5(7):172192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Qian S, Sheng Y (2011) A single camera photogrammetry system for multi-angle fast localization of EEG electrodes. Ann Biomed Eng 39:2844–2856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ripka WL, Ulbricht L, Gewehr PM (2014) Application of a photogrammetric kinematic model for prediction of lung volumes in adolescents: a pilot study. Biomed Eng Online 13:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ritschl LM, Roth M, Fichter AM et al (2018) The possibilities of a portable low-budget three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry system in neonates: a prospective growth analysis and analysis of accuracy. Head Face Med 14(1):11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saad KR, Colombo AS, Ribeiro AP, João SMA (2012) Reliability of photogrammetry in the evaluation of the postural aspects of individuals with structural scoliosis. J Bodyw Mov Ther 16:210–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skarlatos D, Kiparissi S (2012) Comparison of laser scanning, photogrammetry and Sfm-Mvs pipeline applied in structures and artificial surfaces. ISPRS Ann Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci I-3:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stekelenburg CM, Van Der Wal MBA, Knol DL et al (2013) Three-dimensional digital stereophotogrammetry. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stekelenburg CM, Jaspers MEH, Niessen FB, Knol DL, van der Wal MBA, de Vet HCW, van Zuijlen PPM (2015) In a clinimetric analysis, 3D stereophotogrammetry was found to be reliable and valid for measuring scar volume in clinical research. J Clin Epidemiol 68(7):782–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tafti AP, Kirkpatrick AB, Alavi Z et al (2015) Recent advances in 3D SEM surface reconstruction. Micron 78:54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tafti AP, Holz JD, Baghaie A et al (2016) 3DSEM: adaptive and intelligent 3D SEM surface reconstruction. Micron 87:33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ueno A, Osawa H, Suzuki A (1989) Twin-lens type stereoscopic camera. JP Patent 0117387, 06 July 1989Google Scholar
  33. Villa C (2017) Forensic 3D documentation of skin injuries. Int J Legal Med 131:751–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Villa C, Flies MJ, Jacobsen C (2017) Forensic 3D documentation of bodies: simple and fast procedure for combining CT scanning with external photogrammetry data. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 10:47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Westoby M, Brasington J, Glasser N et al (2012) ‘Structure-from-motion’ photogrammetry: a low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179:300–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zemčík R, Karbanova J, Kalis V et al (2012) Stereophotogrammetry of the perineum during vaginal delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet 119:76–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronja Struck
    • 1
  • Sara Cordoni
    • 1
  • Sofia Aliotta
    • 1
  • Laura Pérez-Pachón
    • 1
  • Flora Gröning
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and NutritionUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations