Abstract

Biplane radiography and associated shape-matching provides non-invasive, dynamic, 3D osteo- and arthrokinematic analysis. Due to the complexity of data acquisition, each system should be validated for the anatomy of interest. The purpose of this study was to assess our system’s acquisition methods and validate a custom, automated 2D/3D shape-matching algorithm relative to radiostereometric analysis (RSA) for the cervical and lumbar spine. Additionally, two sources of RSA error were examined via a Monte Carlo simulation: 1) static bead centroid identification and 2) dynamic bead tracking error. Tantalum beads were implanted into a cadaver for RSA and cervical and lumbar spine flexion and lateral bending were passively simulated. A bead centroid identification reliability analysis was performed and a vertebral validation block was used to determine bead tracking accuracy. Our system’s overall root mean square error (RMSE) for the cervical spine ranged between 0.21–0.49mm and 0.42–1.80° and the lumbar spine ranged between 0.35–1.17mm and 0.49–1.06°. The RMSE associated with RSA ranged between 0.14–0.69mm and 0.96–2.33° for bead centroid identification and 0.25–1.19mm and 1.69–4.06° for dynamic bead tracking. The results of this study demonstrate our system’s ability to accurately quantify segmental spine motion. Additionally, RSA errors should be considered when interpreting biplane validation results.

Highlights

  • Back pain is the most debilitating musculoskeletal impairment afflicting today’s society [1]

  • Precision, and root mean square error (RMSE) of the kinematic differences between shape-matching and Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) across all spinal levels and trials for each motion at the segmental and intersegmental level are displayed in Tables 1 and 2

  • The aim of this study was to validate our laboratory’s custom biplane radiography system and automated 2D/3D shape-matching algorithm relative to the gold standard RSA, in a cadaveric specimen; and estimate the magnitude of two sources of error associated with RSA

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Back pain is the most debilitating musculoskeletal impairment afflicting today’s society [1]. Despite the increasing utilization of diagnostic imaging, evidence is immerging that these imaging techniques may only offer nominal insight into the mechanisms of spine pain [4, 5, 7,8,9,10]. This may be due to the limitation of current clinical imaging techniques that generally capture static, two-dimensional (2D) images of the spine; often in non-functional, non-weightbearing positions. These systems are prone to skin/marker motion artifact, marker placement error, and are not capable of accurately determining the underlying osteokinematic motion [11, 12]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call