Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31559166›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2019

Comparison of cartilage and bone morphological models of the ankle joint derived from different medical imaging technologies.

Gilda Durastanti, Alberto Leardini, Sorin Siegler, Stefano Durante, Alberto Bazzocchi, Claudio Belvedere

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Anthropomorphic Characterization of Ankle Joint.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Gilda DurastantiMovement Analysis Laboratory, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Alberto LeardiniMovement Analysis Laboratory, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Sorin SieglerDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Stefano DuranteNursing, Technical and Rehabilitation Assistance Service, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Alberto BazzocchiDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Claudio BelvedereMovement Analysis Laboratory, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate geometrical models of bones and cartilage are necessary in biomechanical modelling of human joints, and in planning and designing of joint replacements. Image-based subject-specific model development requires image segmentation, spatial filtering and 3-dimensional rendering. This is usually based on computed tomography (CT) for bone models, on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for cartilage models. This process has been reported extensively in the past, but no studies have ever compared the accuracy and quality of these models when obtained also by merging different imaging modalities. The scope of the present work is to provide this comparative analysis in order to identify optimal imaging modality and registration techniques for producing 3-dimensional bone and cartilage models of the ankle joint.

methodsOne cadaveric leg was instrumented with multimodal markers and scanned using five different imaging modalities: a standard, a dual-energy and a cone-beam CT (CBCT) device, and a 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla MRI devices. Bone, cartilage, and combined bone and cartilage models were produced from each of these imaging modalities, and registered in space according to matching model surfaces or to corresponding marker centres. To assess the quality in overall model reconstruction, distance map analyses were performed and the difference between model surfaces obtained from the different imaging modalities and registration techniques was measured.

resultsThe registration between models worked better with model surface matching than corresponding marker positions, particularly with MRI. The best bone models were obtained with the CBCT. Models with cartilage were defined better with the 3.0 Tesla than the 1.5 Tesla. For the combined bone and cartilage models, the colour maps and the numerical results from distance map analysis (DMA) showed that the smallest distances and the largest homogeneity were obtained from the CBCT and the 3.0 T MRI via model surface registration.

conclusionsThese observations are important in producing accurate bone and cartilage models from medical imaging and relevant for applications such as designing of custom-made ankle replacements or, more in general, of implants for total as well as focal joint replacements.

Indexed as

3D modelscomputed tomography (CT)cone-beam CT (CBCT)Human jointsmagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)spatial registration

Identifiers

PMID31559166
PMCPMC6732063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.