Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37219804›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2023

Impact of bone and cartilage segmentation from CT and MRI on both bone forearm osteotomy planning.

Ruurd J A Kuiper, Joost W Colaris, Filip Stockmans, Eline M van Es, Max A Viergever, Peter R Seevinck, Harrie Weinans, Ralph J B Sakkers

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Ruurd J A KuiperDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Ruurdkuiper@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6511-3896
Joost W ColarisDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Filip StockmansMuscles & Movement, Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven Campus Kulak, Kortrijk, Belgium.
Eline M van EsDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Max A ViergeverImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter R SeevinckImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Harrie WeinansDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ralph J B SakkersDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLHeidelberg University · DEUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLKU Leuven · BEUtrecht University · NL

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek 15479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe use of MRI scans for pre-operative surgical planning of forearm osteotomies provides additional information of joint cartilage and soft tissue structures and reduces radiation exposure in comparison with the use of CT scans. In this study, we investigated whether using 3D information obtained from MRI with and without cartilage information leads to a different outcome of pre-operative planning.

methodsBilateral CT and MRI scans of the forearms of 10 adolescent and young adult patients with a unilateral bone deformation were acquired in a prospective study. The bones were segmented from CT and MRI, and cartilage only from MRI. The deformed bones were virtually reconstructed, by registering the joint ends to the healthy contralateral side. An optimal osteotomy plane was determined that minimized the distance between the resulting fragments. This process was performed in threefold: using the CT and MRI bone segmentations, and the MRI cartilage segmentations.

resultsComparison of bone segmentation from MRI and CT scan resulted in a 0.95 ± 0.02 Dice Similarity Coefficient and 0.42 ± 0.07 mm Mean Absolute Surface Distance. All realignment parameters showed excellent reliability across the different segmentations. However, the mean differences in translational realignment between CT and MRI bone segmentations (4.5 ± 2.1 mm) and between MRI bone and MRI bone and cartilage segmentations (2.8 ± 2.1 mm) were shown to be clinically and statistically significant. A significant positive correlation was found between the translational realignment and the relative amount of cartilage.

conclusionThis study indicates that although bone realignment remained largely similar when using MRI with and without cartilage information compared to using CT, the small differences in segmentation could induce statistically and clinically significant differences in the osteotomy planning. We also showed that endochondral cartilage might be a non-negligible factor when planning osteotomies for young patients.

Indexed as

Cartilage, ArticularForearmAdolescentHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingOsteotomyProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsTomography, X-Ray ComputedYoung AdultBoneCTMRIOrthopaedic planningOsteotomy

Identifiers

PMID37219804
PMCPMC10632286
OpenAlexW4377564329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.