Three-dimensional ultrasound for knee osteophyte depiction: a comparative study to computed tomography

Valeria Vendries; Tamas Ungi; Jordan Harry; Manuela Kunz; Jana Podlipská; Les MacKenzie; Gabriel Venne

doi:10.1007/s11548-021-02456-4

Three-dimensional ultrasound for knee osteophyte depiction: a comparative study to computed tomography

Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2021 Oct;16(10):1749-1759. doi: 10.1007/s11548-021-02456-4. Epub 2021 Jul 27.

Authors

Valeria Vendries¹, Tamas Ungi², Jordan Harry³, Manuela Kunz², Jana Podlipská⁴, Les MacKenzie³, Gabriel Venne⁵

Affiliations

¹ Anatomical Sciences Program and Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queens University, Kingston, ON, K7L3 N6, Canada. v.vendries@leeds.ac.uk.
² School of Computing, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
³ Anatomical Sciences Program and Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queens University, Kingston, ON, K7L3 N6, Canada.
⁴ Research Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
⁵ Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 0G4, Canada.

Abstract

Purpose: Osteophytes are common radiographic markers of osteoarthritis. However, they are not accurately depicted using conventional imaging, thus hampering surgical interventions that rely on pre-operative images. Studies have shown that ultrasound (US) is promising at detecting osteophytes and monitoring the progression of osteoarthritis. Furthermore, three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound reconstructions may offer a means to quantify osteophytes. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of osteophyte depiction in the knee joint between 3D US and conventional computed tomography (CT).

Methods: Eleven human cadaveric knees were pre-screened for the presence of osteophytes. Three osteoarthritic knees were selected, and then, 3D US and CT images were obtained, segmented, and digitally reconstructed in 3D. After dissection, high-resolution structured light scanner (SLS) images of the joint surfaces were obtained. Surface matching and root mean square (RMS) error analyses of surface distances were performed to assess the accuracy of each modality in capturing osteophytes. The RMS errors were compared between 3D US, CT and SLS models.

Results: Average RMS error comparisons for 3D US versus SLS and CT versus SLS models were 0.87 mm ± 0.33 mm (average ± standard deviation) and 0.95 mm ± 0.32 mm, respectively. No statistical difference was found between 3D US and CT. Comparative observations of imaging modalities suggested that 3D US better depicted osteophytes with cartilage and fibrocartilage tissue characteristics compared to CT.

Conclusion: Using 3D US can improve the depiction of osteophytes with a cartilaginous portion compared to CT. It can also provide useful information about the presence and extent of osteophytes. Whilst algorithm improvements for automatic segmentation and registration of US are needed to provide a more robust investigation of osteophyte depiction accuracy, this investigation puts forward the potential application for 3D US in routine diagnostic evaluations and pre-operative planning of osteoarthritis.

Keywords: 3D ultrasound; Computed tomography; Osteoarthritis; Osteophyte; Structured light scanner.

MeSH terms

Humans
Knee Joint / diagnostic imaging
Knee Joint / surgery
Osteoarthritis, Knee* / diagnostic imaging
Osteophyte* / diagnostic imaging
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Ultrasonography