nach oben

Current Osteoporosis Reports

Erschienen in:

20.01.2024

Quantitative Skeletal Imaging and Image-Based Modeling in Pediatric Orthopaedics

verfasst von: Melissa R. Requist, Megan K. Mills, Kristen L. Carroll, Amy L. Lenz

Erschienen in: Current Osteoporosis Reports | Ausgabe 1/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Musculoskeletal imaging serves a critical role in clinical care and orthopaedic research. Image-based modeling is also gaining traction as a useful tool in understanding skeletal morphology and mechanics. However, there are fewer studies on advanced imaging and modeling in pediatric populations. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of recent literature on skeletal imaging modalities and modeling techniques with a special emphasis on current and future uses in pediatric research and clinical care.

Recent Findings

While many principles of imaging and 3D modeling are relevant across the lifespan, there are special considerations for pediatric musculoskeletal imaging and fewer studies of 3D skeletal modeling in pediatric populations. Improved understanding of bone morphology and growth during childhood in healthy and pathologic patients may provide new insight into the pathophysiology of pediatric-onset skeletal diseases and the biomechanics of bone development. Clinical translation of 3D modeling tools developed in orthopaedic research is limited by the requirement for manual image segmentation and the resources needed for segmentation, modeling, and analysis.

Summary

This paper highlights the current and future uses of common musculoskeletal imaging modalities and 3D modeling techniques in pediatric orthopaedic clinical care and research.

• Schwarzenberg P, Darwiche S, Yoon RS, Dailey HL. Imaging modalities to assess fracture healing. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2020;18(3):169–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-020-00584-5. This paper outlines use of radiographic, CT, DXA, and MRI-based approaches for analyzing fracture union and non-union. It additionally highlights the information that can be derived from finite element modeling of bone calluses and compares novel techniques to the radiographic gold standard.CrossRefPubMed

Otjen J, et al. Foot and ankle musculoskeletal imaging of pediatric patients with cerebral palsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214(6):1389–97. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.22354.CrossRefPubMed

Berkeley R, Tennant S, Saifuddin A. Multimodality imaging of the paediatric flatfoot. Skeletal Radiol. 2021;50(11):2133–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-021-03806-8.CrossRefPubMed

Fayad LM, Bluemke DA, Weber KL, Fishman EK. Characterization of pediatric skeletal tumors and tumor-like conditions: specific cross-sectional imaging signs. Skeletal Radiol. 2006;35(5):259–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-006-0079-3.CrossRefPubMed

Paul AR, Adamo MA. Non-accidental trauma in pediatric patients: a review of epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment. Transl Pediatr. 2014;3(3):195–207. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2224-4336.2014.06.01.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Duffy SO, Squires J, Fromkin JB, Berger RP. Use of skeletal surveys to evaluate for physical abuse: analysis of 703 consecutive skeletal surveys. Pediatrics. 2011;127(1):e47-52. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-0298.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Jarrett DY, Ecklund K. EOS imaging of scoliosis, leg length discrepancy and alignment. Semin Roentgenol. 2021;56(3):228–44. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ro.2021.06.001.CrossRefPubMed

Hecker A, Lerch TD, Egli RJ, Liechti EF, Klenke FM. The EOS 3D imaging system reliably measures posterior tibial slope. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):388. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02529-9.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Zember J, Vega P, Rossi I, Rosenberg ZS. Normal development imaging pitfalls and injuries in the pediatric shoulder. Pediatr Radiol. 2019;49(12):1617–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-019-04512-3.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Cavallo F, Mohn A, Chiarelli F, Giannini C. Evaluation of bone age in children: a mini-review. Front Pediatr. 2021;9:580314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.580314.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

11.

De Sanctis V, Di Maio S, Soliman AT, Raiola G, Elalaily R, Millimaggi G. Hand X-ray in pediatric endocrinology: skeletal age assessment and beyond. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2014;18(Suppl 1):S63-71. https://doi.org/10.4103/2230-8210.145076.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

12.

Thevenot J, et al. Trabecular homogeneity index derived from plain radiograph to evaluate bone quality. J Bone Miner Res. 2013;28(12):2584–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1987.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Huber MB, et al. Development and testing of texture discriminators for the analysis of trabecular bone in proximal femur radiographs. Med Phys. 2009;36(11):5089–98. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3215535.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Clavert P, et al. How to determine the bone mineral density of the distal humerus with radiographic tools? Surg Radiol Anat. 2016;38(4):389–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-015-1569-6.CrossRefPubMed

15.

•• Wang F, Zheng L, Theopold J, Schleifenbaum S, Heyde CE, Osterhoff G. Methods for bone quality assessment in human bone tissue: a systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):174. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03041-4. This paper reviews the methods for bone density, microstructrue, and quality assessment using a variety of imaging modalieties including radiographs, DXA, CT, and MRI as well as mechanical testing methods used to test bone quality in a research setting. It summarizes the benefits and pitfalls of each modality and highlights the importance of quantitative bone assessment.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

16.

Kim SB, et al. Reliability of the EOS imaging system for assessment of the spinal and pelvic alignment in the sagittal plane. Clin Orthop Surg. 2018;10(4):500–7. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2018.10.4.500.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

17.

Machida M, Rocos B, Zabjek K, Lebel DE. A comparison of the reliability and vulnerability of 3D sterEOS and 2D EOS when measuring the sagittal spinal alignment of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform. 2022;10(5):1029–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00499-4.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Sun J, et al. Automatic video analysis framework for exposure region recognition in X-ray imaging automation. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2022;26(9):4359–70. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2022.3172369.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Reddy PK, Kanakatte A, Gubbi J, Poduval M, Ghose A, Purushothaman B. Anatomical landmark detection using deep appearance-context network. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2021;2021:3569–72. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC46164.2021.9630457.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Sa R, et al. Intervertebral disc detection in X-ray images using faster R-CNN. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2017;2017:564–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2017.8036887.CrossRef

21.

Kundu R, Das R, Geem ZW, Han GT, Sarkar R. Pneumonia detection in chest X-ray images using an ensemble of deep learning models. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(9):e0256630. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256630.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

22.

Widodo CS, Naba A, Mahasin MM, Yueniwati Y, Putranto TA, Patra PI. UBNet: deep learning-based approach for automatic X-ray image detection of pneumonia and COVID-19 patients. J Xray Sci Technol. 2022;30(1):57–71. https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-211005.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Reis EP, et al. BRAX, Brazilian labeled chest x-ray dataset. Sci Data. 2022;9(1):487. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01608-8.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

24.

Shevroja E, Cafarelli FP, Guglielmi G, Hans D. DXA parameters, trabecular bone score (TBS) and bone mineral density (BMD), in fracture risk prediction in endocrine-mediated secondary osteoporosis. Endocrine. 2021;74(1):20–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-021-02806-x.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

25.

Martel D, Monga A, Chang G. Osteoporosis imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2022;60(4):537–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2022.02.003.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Havrda JB (2012)Pediatric bone densitometry. Radiol Technol 84(2):155–77

27.

Wasserman H, O’Donnell JM, Gordon CM. Use of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in pediatric patients. Bone. 2017;104:84–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2016.12.008.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Gordon RJ, Gordon CM. Bone health in pediatric patients with IBD: what is new? Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2021;19(4):429–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-021-00691-x.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Wasserman H, Gordon CM. Bone mineralization and fracture risk assessment in the pediatric population. J Clin Densitom. 2017;20(3):389–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.007.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Borga M, et al. Advanced body composition assessment: from body mass index to body composition profiling. J Investig Med. 2018;66(5):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/jim-2018-000722.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

31.

Shepherd JA, Ng BK, Sommer MJ, Heymsfield SB. Body composition by DXA. Bone. 2017;104:101–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2017.06.010.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

32.

Di Iorgi N, Maruca K, Patti G, Mora S. Update on bone density measurements and their interpretation in children and adolescents. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;32(4):477–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2018.06.002.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Bowman L, Loucks AB. In vivo assessment of cortical bone fragility. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2020;18(1):13–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-020-00558-7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

34.

Litrenta J, Masrouha K, Wasterlain A, Castaneda P. Ultrasound evaluation of pediatric orthopaedic patients. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(16):e696–705. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00895.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Piccolo CL, et al. Pediatric musculoskeletal injuries: role of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Musculoskelet Surg. 2017;101(Suppl 1):85–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-017-0452-5.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Karnik AS, Karnik A, Joshi A. Ultrasound examination of pediatric musculoskeletal diseases and neonatal spine. Indian J Pediatr. 2016;83(6):565–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-015-1957-2.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Riccabona M. Pediatric three-dimensional ultrasound: basics and potential clinical value. Clin Imaging. 2005;29(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2004.08.003.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Chiyanika C, Chu WCW. Weight-bearing imaging in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2019;23(6):584–93. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1697941.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Jaworski M, Lebiedowski M, Lorenc RS, Trempe J. Ultrasound bone measurement in pediatric subjects. Calcif Tissue Int. 1995;56(5):368–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00301604.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Baroncelli GI. Quantitative ultrasound methods to assess bone mineral status in children: technical characteristics, performance, and clinical application. Pediatr Res. 2008;63(3):220–8. https://doi.org/10.1203/PDR.0b013e318163a286.CrossRefPubMed

41.

• Wang CY, et al. Quantitative imaging of ultrasound backscattered signals with information entropy for bone microstructure characterization. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):414. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04425-y. This paper provides a novel methodology for quantitative and radiation-free examination of bone microstructure using ultrasound. The results are promisiong for the translational potential of this modality in osteoporosis assessment and eventual bone density assesment in a variety of diseases. The use of ultrasound makes this a lower-cost and radiation-free alternative to existing methods.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

42.

Iori G, Du J, Hackenbeck J, Kilappa V, Raum K. Estimation of cortical bone microstructure from ultrasound backscatter. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2021;68(4):1081–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/TUFFC.2020.3033050.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Lasaygues P, Espinosa L, Bernard S, Petit P, Guillermin R. Ultrasound computed tomography. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2022;1364:227–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91979-5_11.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Ntoulia A, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for musculoskeletal indications in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2021;51(12):2303–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-021-04964-6.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Tang X, Zhao M, Li W, Zhao J. Nanoscale contrast agents for ultrasound imaging of musculoskeletal system. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112582.

46.

Jabbar SI, Aladi AQ, Day C, Chadwick E. A new method of contrast enhancement of musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging based on fuzzy inference technique. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2021;7(5). https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/ac0dce.

47.

Licen U, Kozinc Z. Using shear-wave elastography to assess exercise-induced muscle damage: a review. Sensors (Basel). 2022;22(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/s22197574.

48.

Taljanovic MS, et al. Shear-wave elastography: basic physics and musculoskeletal applications. Radiographics. 2017;37(3):855–70. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017160116.CrossRefPubMed

49.

de Reuver S, Moens A, Kruyt MC, Nievelstein RAJ, Ito K, Castelein RM. Ultrasound shear wave elastography of the intervertebral disc and idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2022;48(5):721–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2022.01.014.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Hermann M, et al. Remote real-time supervision of prehospital point-of-care ultrasound: a feasibility study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2022;30(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00985-0.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

51.

Victorova M, Lau HHT, Lee TT, Navarro-Alarcon D, Zheng Y. Comparison of ultrasound scanning for scoliosis assessment: robotic versus manual. Int J Med Robot. 2023;19(2):e2468. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2468.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Lee KM, et al. Analysis of three-dimensional computed tomography talar morphology in relation to pediatric pes planovalgus deformity. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2019;28(6):591–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPB.0000000000000597.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Narayanan A, Cai A, Xi Y, Maalouf NM, Rubin C, Chhabra A. CT bone density analysis of low-impact proximal femur fractures using Hounsfield units. Clin Imaging. 2019;57:15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2019.04.009.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Amin MFM, Zakaria WMW, Yahya N. Correlation between Hounsfield unit derived from head, thorax, abdomen, spine and pelvis CT and t-scores from DXA. Skeletal Radiol. 2021;50(12):2525–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-021-03801-z.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Troy KL, Edwards WB. Practical considerations for obtaining high quality quantitative computed tomography data of the skeletal system. Bone. 2018;110:58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2018.01.013.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Engelke K, Libanati C, Fuerst T, Zysset P, Genant HK. Advanced CT based in vivo methods for the assessment of bone density, structure, and strength. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2013;11(3):246–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-013-0147-2.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Engelke K, Chaudry O, Bartenschlager S. Opportunistic screening techniques for analysis of CT scans. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2023;21(1):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-022-00764-5.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Obara H, Takahashi M, Kudou K, Mariya Y, Takai Y, Kashiwakura I. Estimation of effective doses in pediatric X-ray computed tomography examination. Exp Ther Med. 2017;14(5):4515–20. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.5102.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

59.

Miller RW. Special susceptibility of the child to certain radiation-induced cancers. Environ Health Perspect. 1995;103(Suppl 6):41–4. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.95103s641.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

60.

• Tse JJ, Smith ACJ, Kuczynski MT, Kaketsis DA, Manske SL. Advancements in osteoporosis imaging, screening, and study of disease etiology. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2021;19(5):532–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-021-00699-3. This paper discusses emerging methods for quantitative CT and MRI imaging for improved osteoporosis diagnosis. The methods outlined in this paper are applicable for broader bone quality assessment from in-vivo imaging and discuss reltaive benefits of specific MRI sequences and CT types, such as cone beam CT.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Choi KY et al. Dual-energy CT-based bone mineral density has practical value for osteoporosis screening around the knee. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081085.

62.

Gong C, Shen Z, He Y. Segmental limited-angle CT reconstruction based on image structural prior. J Xray Sci Technol. 2022;30(6):1127–54. https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-221222.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Ibad HA, et al. Computed tomography: state-of-the-art advancements in musculoskeletal imaging. Invest Radiol. 2023;58(1):99–110. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000908.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Buzzatti L, et al. Evaluating lower limb kinematics and pathology with dynamic CT. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(5):822–7. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B5.BJJ-2020-1064.R2.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Fleps I, Morgan EF. A review of CT-based fracture risk assessment with finite element modeling and machine learning. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2022;20(5):309–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-022-00743-w.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Grassi L, Vaananen SP, Isaksson H. Statistical shape and appearance models: development towards improved osteoporosis care. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2021;19(6):676–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-021-00711-w.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

67.

•• Lans A, et al. Quality assessment of machine learning models for diagnostic imaging in orthopaedics: a systematic review. Artif Intell Med. 2022;132:102396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2022.102396. This review paper analyzes machine learning models for musculoskeltal imaging and diagnositcs. While machine learning models are not currently part of the standard-of-care, clinical translation of image analysis and image-based modeling rely on machine-learned algorithms for automatic image segmentation and model generation to overcome the resource requirement for implementation. This paper highlights the limited existence of machine learning models in the field and the risk of bias in several existing models. These concerns are necessary to address for advancement of musculoskeletal image processing.CrossRefPubMed

68.

Pedoia V, Caliva F, Kazakia G, Burghardt AJ, Majumdar S. Augmenting osteoporosis imaging with machine learning. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2021;19(6):699–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-021-00701-y.CrossRefPubMed

69.

• Holbrook HS, Bowers AF, Mahmoud K, Kelly DM. Weight-bearing computed tomography of the foot and ankle in the pediatric population. J Pediatr Orthop. 2022;42(6):321–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000002168. This paper examines the common indications for standard CT versus weight bearing CT (WBCT) imaging in pediatric populations with foot and ankle pathology and the average reimbursement for each of these. It highlights the benefits of WBCT in pediatric patients, including a decreased cost, lower radiation exposure, and potential improvement for identifying deformity with loaded imaging.CrossRefPubMed

70.

de Cesar Netto C, et al. Combined weightbearing CT and MRI assessment of flexible progressive collapsing foot deformity. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;27(8):884–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2020.12.003.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Hirschmann A, Pfirrmann CW, Klammer G, Espinosa N, Buck FM. Upright cone CT of the hindfoot: comparison of the non-weight-bearing with the upright weight-bearing position. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(3):553–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3028-2.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Conti MS, Ellis SJ. Weight-bearing CT scans in foot and ankle surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(14):e595–603. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00700.CrossRefPubMed

73.

Richter M, Lintz F, de Cesar Netto C, Barg A, Burssens A. Results of more that 11,000 scans with weightbearing CT - impact on costs, radiation exposure, and procedure time. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;26(5):518–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2019.05.019.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Barg A, et al. Weightbearing computed tomography of the foot and ankle: emerging technology topical review. Foot Ankle Int. 2018;39(3):376–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100717740330.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Winn N, Kaur S, Cassar-Pullicino V, Ockendon M. A novel use of cone beam CT: flexion and extension weight-bearing imaging to assess spinal stability. Eur Spine J. 2022;31(7):1667–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07233-8.CrossRefPubMed

76.

Krahenbuhl N, et al. Impact of the rotational position of the hindfoot on measurements assessing the integrity of the distal tibio-fibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;26(7):810–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2019.10.010.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Muhit AA, et al. Peripheral quantitative CT (pQCT) using a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT scanner. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2013;8672:867203. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2006939.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

78.

Brinch S, et al. Weight-bearing cone-beam CT: the need for standardised acquisition protocols and measurements to fulfill high expectations-a review of the literature. Skeletal Radiol. 2023;52(6):1073–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-022-04223-1.CrossRefPubMed

79.

Magan A, Micklesfield LK, Nyati LH, Norris SA, Pettifor JM. A longitudinal comparison of appendicular bone growth and markers of strength through adolescence in a South African cohort using radiogrammetry and pQCT. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(2):451–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4761-9.CrossRefPubMed

80.

Subramanian S et al. Quantitative evaluation of bone microstructure using high-resolution extremity cone-beam CT with a CMOS detector. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2019;10953. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2515504.

81.

Roemer FW. Weight-bearing CT for knee osteoarthritis assessment: a story unfolds. Radiology. 2021;299(3):660–1. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021210357.CrossRefPubMed

82.

Leardini A, et al. Weight-bearing CT technology in musculoskeletal pathologies of the lower limbs: techniques, initial applications, and preliminary combinations with gait-analysis measurements at the Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2019;23(6):643–56. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1697939.CrossRefPubMed

83.

Lenz AL, et al. Statistical shape modeling of the talocrural joint using a hybrid multi-articulation joint approach. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):7314. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86567-7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

84.

Wellenberg RHH, et al. Assessment of foot deformities in individuals with cerebral palsy using weight-bearing CT. Skeletal Radiol. 2023;52(7):1313–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-022-04272-6.CrossRefPubMed

85.

Liu SZ, Cao Q, Osgood GM, Siewerdsen JH, Stayman JW, Zbijewski W. Quantitative assessment of weight-bearing fracture biomechanics using extremity cone-beam CT. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2020;11317. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2549768.

86.

Carol HA, Chauvin NA, Weiss PF. Imaging in pediatric spondyloarthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2023;35(4):226–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0000000000000942.CrossRefPubMed

87.

Gill KG, Nemeth BA, Davis KW. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pediatric knee. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2014;22(4):743–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2014.07.010.CrossRefPubMed

88.

Davis JT, Kwatra N, Schooler GR. Pediatric whole-body MRI: a review of current imaging techniques and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;44(4):783–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25259.CrossRefPubMed

89.

Yao K, Troupis JM. Diffusion-weighted imaging and the skeletal system: a literature review. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(11):1071–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2016.07.007.CrossRefPubMed

90.

Bhojwani N, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in musculoskeletal radiology-clinical applications and future directions. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2015;5(5):740–53. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2015.07.07.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

91.

Park SY, Lee MH, Jeon JY, Chung HW, Lee SH, Shin MJ. MRI evaluation of suspected pathologic fracture at the extremities from metastasis: diagnostic value of added diffusion-weighted imaging. Korean J Radiol. 2019;20(5):812–22. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0545.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

92.

Agrawal K, Agarwal Y, Chopra RK, Batra A, Chandra R, Thukral BB. Evaluation of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted MRI in postmenopausal bone strength. Cureus. 2015;7(9):e327. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.327.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

93.

Koyama H, Yoshihara H, Kotera M, Tamura T, Sugimura K. The quantitative diagnostic capability of routine MR imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging in osteoporosis patients. Clin Imaging. 2013;37(5):925–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2013.05.001.CrossRefPubMed

94.

• Chong LR, Lee K, Sim FY. 3D MRI with CT-like bone contrast - an overview of current approaches and practical clinical implementation. Eur J Radiol. 2021;143:109915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109915. This paper highlights emerging MRI acquisition sequences that improve skeletal imaging with the goal of achieving radiation-free CT-like image contrast. The common sequences used for this are ultrashort and zero echo time, T1-weighted gradient recalled echo, and susceptibility-weighted imaging. Further, machine learning methods may improve reconstruction of CT-like images from these MRI scans. This represents a promising direction for radiation-free musculoskeletal imaging.CrossRefPubMed

95.

Bharadwaj UU, et al. CT-like MRI: a qualitative assessment of ZTE sequences for knee osseous abnormalities. Skeletal Radiol. 2022;51(8):1585–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-021-03987-2.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

96.

Pazahr S, Nanz D, Sutter R. 7 T Musculoskeletal MRI: fundamentals and clinical implementation. Invest Radiol. 2023;58(1):88–98. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000896.CrossRefPubMed

97.

PalotManzil FF, Baldwin J, Bag AK. Pediatric skeletal scintigraphy: what a general radiologist needs to know. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2018;47(4):270–81. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.07.001.CrossRef

98.

Beheshti M. (18)F-sodium fluoride PET/CT and PET/MR imaging of bone and joint disorders. PET Clin. 2018;13(4):477–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpet.2018.05.004.CrossRefPubMed

99.

Adams C, Banks KP (2023) Bone Scan. StatPearls Publishing, StatPearlsTreasure Island (FL). Retrieved July 2023. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30285381

100.

Grant FD. (1)(8)F-fluoride PET and PET/CT in children and young adults. PET Clin. 2014;9(3):287–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpet.2014.03.004.CrossRefPubMed

101.

Koppula BR, Morton KA, Al-Dulaimi R, Fine GC, Damme NM, Brown RKJ. SPECT/CT in the evaluation of suspected skeletal pathology. Tomography. 2021;7(4):581–605. https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7040050.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

102.

Gholamrezanezhad A, Basques K, Batouli A, Matcuk G, Alavi A, Jadvar H. Clinical nononcologic applications of PET/CT and PET/MRI in musculoskeletal, orthopedic, and rheumatologic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(6):W245–63. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18523.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

103.

Cohen B, Hiller N, Szalat A, Vainstein V. Opportunistic evaluation of bone mineral density by Pet-Ct in Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Endocr Pract. 2019;25(9):869–76. https://doi.org/10.4158/EP-2019-0122.CrossRefPubMed

104.

Kay FU, et al. Quantitative CT detects undiagnosed low bone mineral density in oncologic patients imaged with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2021;46(1):8–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000003416.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

105.

Schwaiger BJ, et al. Vertebral and femoral bone mineral density and bone strength in prostate cancer patients assessed in phantomless PET/CT examinations. Bone. 2017;101:62–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2017.04.008.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

106.

Gatidis S, Bender B, Reimold M, Schafer JF. PET/MRI in children. Eur J Radiol. 2017;94:A64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.01.018.CrossRefPubMed

107.

Schar MO, et al. Use of small animal PET-CT imaging for in vivo assessment of tendon-to-bone healing: a pilot study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2022;30(1):23094990221076656. https://doi.org/10.1177/23094990221076654.CrossRefPubMed

108.

Rathnayaka K, Sahama T, Schuetz MA, Schmutz B. Effects of CT image segmentation methods on the accuracy of long bone 3D reconstructions. Med Eng Phys. 2011;33(2):226–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.10.002.CrossRefPubMed

109.

Ben Younes L, Nakajima Y, Saito T. Fully automatic segmentation of the Femur from 3D-CT images using primitive shape recognition and statistical shape models. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2014;9(2):189–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-013-0950-3.CrossRefPubMed

110.

Requist MR, Sripanich Y, Peterson AC, Rolvien T, Barg A, Lenz AL. Semi-automatic micro-CT segmentation of the midfoot using calibrated thresholds. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2021;16(3):387–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02318-z.CrossRefPubMed

111.

McGrath H et al. Manual segmentation versus semi-automated segmentation for quantifying vestibular schwannoma volume on MRI. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-020-02222-y.

112.

Newton MD, Junginger L, Maerz T. Automated microCT-based bone and articular cartilage analysis using iterative shape averaging and atlas-based registration. Bone. 2020;137:115417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115417.CrossRefPubMed

113.

Guo H, et al. 3D surface voxel tracing corrector for accurate bone segmentation. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018;13(10):1549–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1804-9.CrossRefPubMed

114.

Klein AA-O, Warszawski J, Hillengaß J, Maier-Hein KH (2019) Automatic bone segmentation in whole-body CT images. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 14:21–9.

115.

Godoy IRB, Silva RP, Rodrigues TC, Skaf AY, de Castro Pochini A, Yamada AF. Automatic MRI segmentation of pectoralis major muscle using deep learning. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):5300. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09280-z.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

116.

Gillot M, et al. Automatic multi-anatomical skull structure segmentation of cone-beam computed tomography scans using 3D UNETR. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(10):e0275033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275033.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

117.

Shapey J, et al. Segmentation of vestibular schwannoma from MRI, an open annotated dataset and baseline algorithm. Sci Data. 2021;8(1):286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-01064-w.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

118.

Kvarda P, et al. 3D assessment in posttraumatic ankle osteoarthritis. Foot Ankle Int. 2021;42(2):200–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100720961315.CrossRefPubMed

119.

Michalski MP, An TW, Haupt ET, Yeshoua B, Salo J, Pfeffer G. Abnormal bone morphology in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. Foot Ankle Int. 2022;43(4):576–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/10711007211055460.CrossRefPubMed

120.

Knutson K, Peterson AC, Lisonbee RJ, Hintermann B, Krahenbuhl N, Lenz AL. Joint coverage analysis in progressive collapsing foot deformity. J Orthop Res. 2023;41(9):1965–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.25543.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

121.

Bernasconi A, et al. Pes cavovarus in Charcot-Marie-Tooth compared to the idiopathic cavovarus foot: a preliminary weightbearing CT analysis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;27(2):186–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2020.04.004.CrossRefPubMed

122.

Krahenbuhl N, et al. Assessment of progressive collapsing foot deformity using semiautomated 3D measurements derived from weightbearing CT scans. Foot Ankle Int. 2022;43(3):363–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/10711007211049754.CrossRefPubMed

123.

Richter M, Duerr F, Schilke R, Zech S, Meissner SA, Naef I. Semi-automatic software-based 3D-angular measurement for weight-bearing CT (WBCT) in the foot provides different angles than measurement by hand. Foot Ankle Surg. 2022;28(7):919–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2022.01.001.CrossRefPubMed

124.

Myers TG, Ramkumar PN, Ricciardi BF, Urish KL, Kipper J, Ketonis C. Artificial intelligence and orthopaedics: an introduction for clinicians. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102(9):830–40. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.19.01128.CrossRefPubMed

125.

Viceconti M, Qasim M, Bhattacharya P, Li X. Are CT-based finite element model predictions of femoral bone strength clinically useful? Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2018;16(3):216–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-018-0438-8.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

126.

• Pahr DH, Reisinger AG. A review on recent advances in the constitutive modeling of bone tissue. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2020;18(6):696–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-020-00631-1. This paper provides an overview of current finite element modling methods for understanding bone mechanics. It highlights novel models that differentiate between cortical and trabecular bone and incorporate microstructural changes. Additionally, it discusses the limitations and errors of existing models and the imaging standards necessary for generating valid models.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

127.

Dailey HL, Kersh ME, Collins CJ, Troy KL. Mechanical biomarkers in bone using image-based finite element analysis. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2023;21(3):266–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-023-00784-9.CrossRefPubMed

128.

Sadeghian SM, Shapiro FD, Shefelbine SJ. Computational model of endochondral ossification: simulating growth of a long bone. Bone. 2021;153:116132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2021.116132.CrossRefPubMed

129.

Verbruggen SW, et al. Altered biomechanical stimulation of the developing hip joint in presence of hip dysplasia risk factors. J Biomech. 2018;78:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.07.016.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

130.

•• Lenz AL, Lisonbee RJ. Biomechanical insights afforded by shape modeling in the foot and ankle. Foot Ankle Clin. 2023;28(1):63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcl.2022.11.001. This paper provides an overview of current uses of statistical shape modeling in musculoskeltal research, sumamrizing the state of the technology with recent advancements in multi-domain modeling. It also highlights the importance of high-resolution quantitative imaging in the creation of useful models and explains the barriers and potential benefits of clinical translation of statistical shape modeling in the foot and ankle.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

131.

Harris MD, Datar M, Whitaker RT, Jurrus ER, Peters CL, Anderson AE. Statistical shape modeling of cam femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res. 2013;31(10):1620–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22389.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

132.

Johnson LG, et al. Application of statistical shape modeling to the human hip joint: a scoping review. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):533–83. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00175.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

133.

Feng Y, et al. Statistical shape modelling to analyse the talus in paediatric clubfoot. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2021;235(8):849–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544119211012115.CrossRefPubMed

134.

Guda H, et al. Assessment of the talar deformity and alignment in congenital clubfoot using three-dimensional MRI after Ponseti method. J Orthop Sci. 2020;25(5):880–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2019.11.008.CrossRefPubMed

135.

Bin Ghouth SG, Williams SA, Reid SL, Besier TF, Handsfield GG. A statistical shape model of soleus muscle morphology in spastic cerebral palsy. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):7711. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11611-z.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

136.

Peterson AC, et al. Multi-level multi-domain statistical shape model of the subtalar, talonavicular, and calcaneocuboid joints. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:1056536. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.1056536.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

137.

Adams J, Bhalodia R, Elhabian S. Uncertain-DeepSSM: from images to probabilistic shape models. Shape Med Imaging. 2020;2020(12474):57–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61056-2_5.CrossRef

138.

Bhalodia R, Elhabian SY, Kavan L, Whitaker RT. DeepSSM: a deep learning framework for statistical shape modeling from raw images. Shape Med Imaging. 2018;2018(11167):244–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04747-4_23.CrossRef

139.

Sutherland J, et al. Applying modern virtual and augmented reality technologies to medical images and models. J Digit Imaging. 2019;32(1):38–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-018-0122-7.CrossRefPubMed

140.

Pires F, Costa C, Dias P. On the use of virtual reality for medical imaging visualization. J Digit Imaging. 2021;34(4):1034–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-021-00480-z.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Titel: Quantitative Skeletal Imaging and Image-Based Modeling in Pediatric Orthopaedics
verfasst von: Melissa R. Requist
Megan K. Mills
Kristen L. Carroll
Amy L. Lenz
Publikationsdatum: 20.01.2024
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Current Osteoporosis Reports / Ausgabe 1/2024
Print ISSN: 1544-1873
Elektronische ISSN: 1544-2241
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-023-00845-z

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

07.05.2024 Klinik aktuell Nachrichten

Extreme Arbeitsverdichtung und kaum Supervision: Dr. Andrea Martini, Sprecherin des Bündnisses Junge Ärztinnen und Ärzte (BJÄ) über den Frust des ärztlichen Nachwuchses und die Vorteile des Rucksack-Modells.

Aquatherapie bei Fibromyalgie wirksamer als Trockenübungen

03.05.2024 Fibromyalgiesyndrom Nachrichten

Bewegungs-, Dehnungs- und Entspannungsübungen im Wasser lindern die Beschwerden von Patientinnen mit Fibromyalgie besser als das Üben auf trockenem Land. Das geht aus einer spanisch-brasilianischen Vergleichsstudie hervor.

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

IT für Ärzte Nachrichten

Darauf haben viele Praxen gewartet: Das Zi hat eine Liste von Praxisverwaltungssystemen veröffentlicht, die von Nutzern positiv bewertet werden. Eine gute Grundlage für wechselwillige Ärztinnen und Psychotherapeuten.

Proximale Humerusfraktur: Auch 100-Jährige operieren?

01.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Mit dem demographischen Wandel versorgt auch die Chirurgie immer mehr betagte Menschen. Von Entwicklungen wie Fast-Track können auch ältere Menschen profitieren und bei proximaler Humerusfraktur können selbst manche 100-Jährige noch sicher operiert werden.

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Quantitative Skeletal Imaging and Image-Based Modeling in Pediatric Orthopaedics

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Aquatherapie bei Fibromyalgie wirksamer als Trockenübungen

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

Proximale Humerusfraktur: Auch 100-Jährige operieren?

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2024

Cracking the Code: The Role of Peripheral Nervous System Signaling in Fracture Repair

Mind the Gap: Unraveling the Intricate Dance Between Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias and Bone Health

The Bone-Vascular Axis in Chronic Kidney Disease: From Pathophysiology to Treatment

The Role of Osteocytes in Pre-metastatic Niche Formation

The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Review Articles

Efficacy of Osteoporosis Medications in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Aquatherapie bei Fibromyalgie wirksamer als Trockenübungen

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

Proximale Humerusfraktur: Auch 100-Jährige operieren?

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie