Accuracy of pelvic bone segmentation for 3d printing: a study of segmentation accuracy based on anatomic landmarks to evaluate the influence of the observer.

IF 3.2 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING 3D printing in medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-08 DOI:10.1186/s41205-024-00237-8
Lukas Juergensen, Robert Rischen, Max Toennemann, Georg Gosheger, Dominic Gehweiler, Martin Schulze
{"title":"Accuracy of pelvic bone segmentation for 3d printing: a study of segmentation accuracy based on anatomic landmarks to evaluate the influence of the observer.","authors":"Lukas Juergensen, Robert Rischen, Max Toennemann, Georg Gosheger, Dominic Gehweiler, Martin Schulze","doi":"10.1186/s41205-024-00237-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>3D printing has a wide range of applications and has brought significant change to many medical fields. However, ensuring quality assurance (QA) is essential for patient safety and requires a QA program that encompasses the entire production process. This process begins with imaging and continues on with segmentation, which is the conversion of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data into virtual 3D-models. Since segmentation is highly influenced by manual intervention the influence of the users background on segmentation accuracy should be thoroughly investigated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventeen computed tomography (CT) scans of the pelvis with physiological bony structures were identified, anonymized, exported as DICOM data sets, and pelvic bones were segmented by four observers with different backgrounds. Landmarks were measured on DICOM images and in the segmentations. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess inter-observer agreement, and the trueness of the segmentation results was analyzed by comparing the DICOM landmark measurements with the measurements of the segmentation results. The correlation between segmentation trueness and segmentation time was analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The lower limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the ICCs for the seven landmarks analyzed ranged from 0.511 to 0.986. The distance between the iliac crests showed the highest agreement between observers, while the distance between the ischial tuberosities showed the lowest. The distance between the upper edge of the symphysis and the promontory showed the lowest deviation between DICOM measurements and segmentation measurements (mean deviations < 1 mm), while the intertuberous distance showed the highest deviation (mean deviations 14.5-18.2 mm).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Investigators with diverse backgrounds in segmentation and varying experience with slice images achieved pelvic bone segmentations with landmark measurements of mostly high agreement in a setup with high realism. In contrast, high variability was observed in the segmentation of the coccyx. In general, interobserver agreement was high, but due to measurement inaccuracies, landmark-based approaches cannot conclusively show that segmentation accuracy is within a clinically tolerable range of 2 mm for the pelvis. If the segmentation is performed by a very inexperienced user, the result should be reviewed critically by the clinician in charge.</p>","PeriodicalId":72036,"journal":{"name":"3D printing in medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460233/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"3D printing in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-024-00237-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: 3D printing has a wide range of applications and has brought significant change to many medical fields. However, ensuring quality assurance (QA) is essential for patient safety and requires a QA program that encompasses the entire production process. This process begins with imaging and continues on with segmentation, which is the conversion of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data into virtual 3D-models. Since segmentation is highly influenced by manual intervention the influence of the users background on segmentation accuracy should be thoroughly investigated.

Methods: Seventeen computed tomography (CT) scans of the pelvis with physiological bony structures were identified, anonymized, exported as DICOM data sets, and pelvic bones were segmented by four observers with different backgrounds. Landmarks were measured on DICOM images and in the segmentations. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess inter-observer agreement, and the trueness of the segmentation results was analyzed by comparing the DICOM landmark measurements with the measurements of the segmentation results. The correlation between segmentation trueness and segmentation time was analyzed.

Results: The lower limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the ICCs for the seven landmarks analyzed ranged from 0.511 to 0.986. The distance between the iliac crests showed the highest agreement between observers, while the distance between the ischial tuberosities showed the lowest. The distance between the upper edge of the symphysis and the promontory showed the lowest deviation between DICOM measurements and segmentation measurements (mean deviations < 1 mm), while the intertuberous distance showed the highest deviation (mean deviations 14.5-18.2 mm).

Conclusions: Investigators with diverse backgrounds in segmentation and varying experience with slice images achieved pelvic bone segmentations with landmark measurements of mostly high agreement in a setup with high realism. In contrast, high variability was observed in the segmentation of the coccyx. In general, interobserver agreement was high, but due to measurement inaccuracies, landmark-based approaches cannot conclusively show that segmentation accuracy is within a clinically tolerable range of 2 mm for the pelvis. If the segmentation is performed by a very inexperienced user, the result should be reviewed critically by the clinician in charge.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于 3d 打印的骨盆骨分割的准确性:基于解剖地标的分割准确性研究,以评估观察者的影响。
背景:3D 打印技术应用广泛,为许多医疗领域带来了重大变革。然而,确保质量保证(QA)对患者安全至关重要,因此需要一个涵盖整个生产流程的质量保证计划。这一过程从成像开始,然后是分割,即将医学数字成像和通信(DICOM)数据转换为虚拟三维模型。由于分割受人工干预的影响很大,因此应深入研究用户背景对分割准确性的影响:方法:对 17 个骨盆的计算机断层扫描(CT)和生理骨骼结构进行了识别、匿名处理,并导出为 DICOM 数据集,由四名不同背景的观察者对骨盆骨骼进行分割。DICOM 图像和分割图像中的地标均经过测量。通过计算类内相关系数(ICC)来评估观察者之间的一致性,并通过比较 DICOM 地标测量值和分割结果的测量值来分析分割结果的真实性。还分析了分割真实度与分割时间之间的相关性:结果:所分析的七个地标的 ICC 的 95% 置信区间下限在 0.511 到 0.986 之间。髂嵴之间的距离在观察者之间显示出最高的一致性,而髂嵴之间的距离在观察者之间显示出最低的一致性。干骺端上缘与突出部之间的距离显示出 DICOM 测量值与分割测量值之间的最小偏差(平均偏差结论):具有不同切片背景和不同切片图像经验的研究人员在高度逼真的设置下,通过地标测量实现了骨盆骨切片,且大部分测量结果高度一致。相比之下,在尾骨的分割中观察到的变异性较高。总的来说,观察者之间的一致性很高,但由于测量的不准确性,基于地标的方法不能最终证明骨盆的分割精度在临床可容忍的 2 毫米范围内。如果是由经验不足的用户进行分割,则应由负责的临床医生对结果进行严格审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
An anthropomorphic phantom for atrial transseptal puncture simulation training. Effects of 3D ultrasonography and 3D printed images on maternal-fetal attachment and its correlation with overall smoking within pregnancy: a pilot study. Accuracy of pelvic bone segmentation for 3d printing: a study of segmentation accuracy based on anatomic landmarks to evaluate the influence of the observer. Planning for complex inferior vena cava filter retrievals: the implementation and effectiveness of 3D printed models. Comparative analysis of conventionally and additively manufactured acetabular shells from a single manufacturer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1