Advertisement

Automatic Full Femur Segmentation from Computed Tomography Datasets Using an Atlas-Based Approach

  • Bryce A. Besler
  • Andrew S. Michalski
  • Nils D. Forkert
  • Steven K. BoydEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10734)

Abstract

Automatic segmentation of femurs in clinical computed tomography remains a challenge. Joints degraded by old age are a particularly challenging dataset to segment. The objective of this study is to evaluate existing methods and propose an alternative method for segmentation of femurs in clinical computed tomography datasets for joints degraded by old age. Bilateral hip computed tomography scans of three cadaveric specimens (six femurs) were available for this study. Deformable registration using an affine selection criterion was used for atlas-based segmentation. For comparison, the six femurs were also segmented with two graph-cut algorithms. An automatic graph-cut segmentation algorithm was only able to separate the femur from the pelvis in two of the six femurs due to a limitation of graph-cuts. The atlas-based method produced consistent automatic segmentations for all degraded joints. In conclusion, atlas-based femur segmentation performs considerably better than an automatic graph-cut algorithm when applied to degraded joints.

Keywords

Atlas-based segmentation Graph-cut Femur Computed tomography 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank NSERC CGS-M for funding, the Body Donation Program at the Gross Anatomy Laboratory for access to cadaveric specimens, and the individuals who graciously contributed their bodies. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Sonny Chan from the Department of Computer Science at the University of Calgary for guidance.

References

  1. 1.
    Pickhardt, P., Pooler, B., Lauder, T., del Rio, A., Bruce, R., Binkley, N.: Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using abdominal computed tomography scans obtained for other indications. Ann. Intern. Med. 158(8), 588–595 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burge, R., Dawson-Hughes, B., Solomon, D., Wong, J., King, A., Tosteson, A.: Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J. Bone Miner. Res. 22(3), 465–475 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zoroofi, R., Sato, Y., Sasama, T., Nishii, T., Sugano, N., Yonenobu, K., Yoshikawa, H., Ochi, T., Tamura, S.: Automated segmentation of acetabulum and femoral head from 3-D CT images. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 7(4), 329–343 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kang, Y., Engelke, K., Kalender, W.: A new accurate and precise 3-D segmentation method for skeletal structures in volumetric CT data. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 22(5), 586–598 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boykov, Y., Funka-Lea, G.: Graph cuts and efficient N-D image segmentation. Int. J. Comput. Vision 70(2), 109–131 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pauchard, Y., Fitze, T., Browarnik, D., Eskandari, A., Pauchard, I., Enns-Bray, W., Pálsson, H., Sigurdsson, S., Ferguson, S., Harris, T., Gudnason, V., Helgason, B.: Interactive graph-cut segmentation for fast creation of finite element models from clinical CT data for hip fracture prediction. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 19(16), 1693–1703 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krčah, M., Székely, G., Blanc, R.: Fully automatic and fast segmentation of the femur bone from 3D-CT images with no shape prior. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging - ISBI 2011, pp. 2087–2090. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Descoteaux, M., Audette, M., Chinzei, K., Siddiqi, K.: Bone enhancement filtering: application to sinus bone segmentation and simulation of pituitary surgery. Comput. Aided Surg. 11(5), 247–255 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ehrhardt, J., Handels, H., Malina, T., Strathmann, B., Plötz, W., Pöppl, S.: Atlas-based segmentation of bone structures to support the virtual planning of hip operations. Int. J. Med. Inform. 64(2–3), 439–447 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thirion, J.: Image matching as a diffusion process: an analogy with Maxwell’s demons. Med. Image Anal. 2(3), 243–260 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Whitmarsh, T., Treece, G.M., Poole, K.E.S.: Automatic segmentation and discrimination of connected joint bones from CT by multi-atlas registration. In: Yao, J., Klinder, T., Li, S. (eds.) Computational Methods and Clinical Applications for Spine Imaging. LNCVB, vol. 17, pp. 199–207. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07269-2_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aljabar, P., Heckemann, R., Hammers, A., Hajnal, J., Rueckert, D.: Multi-atlas based segmentation of brain images: atlas selection and its effect on accuracy. NeuroImage 46(3), 726–738 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein, S., Staring, M., Murphy, K., Viergever, M., Pluim, J.: Elastix: a toolbox for intensity-based medical image registration. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 29(1), 196–205 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dice, L.: Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26(3), 297–302 (1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huttenlocher, D., Klanderman, G., Rucklidge, W.: Comparing images using the hausdorff distance. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 15(9), 850–863 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rohlfing, T., Brandt, R., Menzel, R., Maurer, C.: Evaluation of atlas selection strategies for atlas-based image segmentation with application to confocal microscopy images of bee brains. NeuroImage 21(4), 1428–1442 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bryce A. Besler
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrew S. Michalski
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nils D. Forkert
    • 3
    • 4
  • Steven K. Boyd
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Biomedical Engineering Graduate ProgramUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint HealthUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Cumming School of MedicineUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  4. 4.Hotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations