Cited by 72Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

Marker‐free motion correction in weight‐bearing cone‐beam CT of the knee joint

Open access
Berger, M., Müller, K., Aichert, A., Unberath, M., Thies, J., Choi, J.‐H., Fahrig, R., Maier, A.·2016·Medical Physics

Abstract

Purpose To allow for a purely image-based motion estimation and compensation in weight-bearing cone-beam computed tomography of the knee joint. Methods Weight-bearing imaging of the knee joint in a standing position poses additional requirements for the image reconstruction algorithm. In contrast to supine scans, patient motion needs to be estimated and compensated. The authors propose a method that is based on 2D/3D registration of left and right femur and tibia segmented from a prior, motion-free reconstruction acquired in supine position. Each segmented bone is first roughly aligned to the motion-corrupted reconstruction of a scan in standing or squatting position. Subsequently, a rigid 2D/3D registration is performed for each bone to each of K projection images, estimating 6 × 4 × K motion parameters. The motion of individual bones is combined into global motion fields using thin-plate-spline extrapolation. These can be incorporated into a motion-compensated reconstruction in the backprojection step. The authors performed visual and quantitative comparisons between a state-of-the-art marker-based (MB) method and two variants of the proposed method using gradient correlation (GC) and normalized gradient information (NGI) as similarity measure for the 2D/3D registration. Results The authors evaluated their method on four acquisitions under different squatting positions of the same patient. All methods showed substantial improvement in image quality compared to the uncorrect…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1118/1.4941012

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A 2D intraoperative X-ray can be registered to a 3D preoperative CT volume by maximizing its similarity to a rendered X-ray with respect to the camera pose.

    “A 2D intraoperative X-ray can be registered to a 3D preoperative CT volume by maximizing its similarity to a rendered X-ray with respect to the camera pose [8, 14, 34].”
  • Hand-crafted similarity metrics are positively correlated with pose differences when perturbations are small, but are generally non-convex and fail to accurately represent pose offsets when perturbations are large.

    “While these metrics are positively correlated with pose differences when the perturbations in {K^v,T^xv,ω^D} are small, they are generally non-convex and fail to accurately represent pose offsets when perturbations are large.”
  • Conventional intensity-based 2D/3D registration methods mostly use hand-crafted similarity metrics between the current estimate and the 2D observation as loss function, with common choices being Normalized Cross Correlation, gradient information, or Mutual Information.

    “Conventional intensity-based methods mostly use hand-crafted similarity metrics between y v and its current best estimate y^v=(P(Kv,Txv)◦DωD)(x)fx1 as loss function. Common choices for the similarity metric are Normalized Cross Correlation (NCC), gradient information (Berger et al., 2016), or Mutual Information (MI) (Maes et al., 1997).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berger, M., Müller, K., Aichert, A., Unberath, M., Thies, J., Choi, J. ‐., Fahrig, R., & Maier, A.
Affiliations
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Berger, M.
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02-10
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
1235-1248
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2291673995
Cited by
72
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Physics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (S10RR026714)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Graduate School GRK‐1773, SAOT, Graduate School GRK-1773)
  • Siemens (AX)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH) (S10RR026714)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (Graduate School GRK-1773, SAOT)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
knee joint, 2D-3D registration, motion-compensated reconstruction, thin-plate splines, gradient correlation, squatting position, streak artifacts, non-rigid deformation, back-projection
MeSH terms
Humans, Knee Joint, Movement, Weight-Bearing, Artifacts, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

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