Deep Learning-Based X-ray Inpainting for Improving Spinal 2d-3d Registration
Abstract
Background Two-dimensional (2D)-3D registration is challenging in the presence of implant projections on intraoperative images, which can limit the registration capture range. Here, we investigate the use of deep-learning-based inpainting for removing implant projections from the X-rays to improve the registration performance. Methods We trained deep-learning-based inpainting models that can fill in the implant projections on X-rays. Clinical datasets were collected to evaluate the inpainting based on six image similarity measures. The effect of X-ray inpainting on capture range of 2D-3D registration was also evaluated. Results The X-ray inpainting significantly improved the similarity between the inpainted images and the ground truth. When applying inpainting before the 2D-3D registration process, we demonstrated significant recovery of the capture range by up to 85%. Conclusion Applying deep-learning-based inpainting on X-ray images masked by implants can markedly improve the capture range of the associated 2D-3D registration task.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Studies may use different definitions of the same quantity, such as capture range defined using an SVM decision boundary versus mTRE.
“In addition to the use of different metrics for validation purposes discussed above, studies may even use different definitions of the same quantity (such as the capture range, that is defined, e.g., using the decision boundary of an SVM classifier in (Esfandiari et al., 2021) and using mTRE in (Schaffert et al., 2020a).”
From The Impact of Machine Learning on 2D/3D Registration for Image-Guided Interventions: A Systematic Review and Perspective (2021) · cites this paper as Esfandiari et al., 2021
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 41 · Cited by 12
- Authors
- Esfandiari, H., Weidert, S., Kövesházi, I., Anglin, C., Street, J., & Hodgson, A. J.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Esfandiari, Hooman
- Venue
- The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-02-15
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e2228-e2228
- ISSN
- 1478-5951 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-596X
- OpenAlex
- W3126050797
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
- Keywords
- 2D-3D registration, spinal imaging, capture range, intraoperative imaging, deep learning, image inpainting, image similarity measures
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Spine, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, X-Rays, Imaging, Three-Dimensional
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review