Machine learning for automated 3-dimensional segmentation of the spine and suggested placement of pedicle screws based on intraoperative cone-beam computer tomography

Restricted access

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to develop and validate a system for automatic segmentation of the spine, pedicle identification, and screw path suggestion for use with an intraoperative 3D surgical navigation system.

METHODS

Cone-beam CT (CBCT) images of the spines of 21 cadavers were obtained. An automated model-based approach was used for segmentation. Using machine learning methodology, the algorithm was trained and validated on the image data sets. For measuring accuracy, surface area errors of the automatic segmentation were compared to the manually outlined reference surface on CBCT. To further test both technical and clinical accuracy, the algorithm was applied to a set of 20 clinical cases. The authors evaluated the system’s accuracy in pedicle identification by measuring the distance between the user-defined midpoint of each pedicle and the automatically segmented midpoint. Finally, 2 independent surgeons performed a qualitative evaluation of the segmentation to judge whether it was adequate to guide surgical navigation and whether it would have resulted in a clinically acceptable pedicle screw placement.

RESULTS

The clinically relevant pedicle identification and automatic pedicle screw planning accuracy was 86.1%. By excluding patients with severe spinal deformities (i.e., Cobb angle > 75° and severe spinal degeneration) and previous surgeries, a success rate of 95.4% was achieved. The mean time (± SD) for automatic segmentation and screw planning in 5 vertebrae was 11 ± 4 seconds.

CONCLUSIONS

The technology investigated has the potential to aid surgeons in navigational planning and improve surgical navigation workflow while maintaining patient safety.

ABBREVIATIONS CBCT = cone-beam CT; IQR = interquartile range; MaxDist = maximum distance; OR = operating room; RMSDist = root-mean-squared distance.

Article Information

Correspondence Gustav Burström: Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. gustav.burstrom@ki.se.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online March 22, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2018.12.SPINE181397.

Disclosures C.B., J.H., R.N., C.L., D.B., R.H., and M.G. are employed by Philips Research and/or Philips Healthcare, which has a vested interest in the product in this manuscript. The authors report that Karolinska University Hospital and Philips Healthcare have a major collaboration agreement. Dr. Racadio reports that Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Department of Radiology has a Master Research Agreement with Philips Medical.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

  • View in gallery

    A visualization of how the software identifies the vertebrae by a 3-step process, showing the application of the generalized Hough transform (A), the parametric adaptation improving the global alignment (B), and the deformable adaptation finalizing the local alignment (C). Figure is available in color online only.

  • View in gallery

    Visualization of the automatic pedicle identification and screw placement suggestion in axial (A) and sagittal (B) views and the visualization of the segmented vertebral section including screw suggestion (C). Figure is available in color online only.

  • View in gallery

    Illustration of midpoint measurements. The distance (in red) from the midpoint of each pedicle (in brown) to the midpoint of the corresponding segmented 3D reconstruction of the pedicle (in blue) in the same coronal plane was measured for all segmented pedicles. Figure is available in color online only.

  • View in gallery

    The number of segmented pedicles in each patient separated by correct or incorrect identification. Patients with any of the exclusion criteria present are indicated by pound signs (#). Figure is available in color online only.

  • View in gallery

    Distribution of distances between the algorithm-suggested pedicle midpoint and the actual manually defined pedicle midpoint. Deviation distances are stratified by correct or incorrect pedicle identification and median (solid vertical line) and quartiles (dashed vertical lines) are highlighted. Figure is available in color online only.

References

  • 1

    Ballard DH: Generalizing the Hough transform to detect arbitrary shapes. Pattern Recognit 13:1111221981

  • 2

    Beichel RBauer CBornik ASorantin EBischof H: Liver segmentation in CT data: A segmentation refinement approach in Heimann TStyner Mvan Ginneken B (eds): 3D Segmentation in the Clinic: A Grand Challenge2007 (http://mbi.dkfz-heidelberg.de/grand-challenge2007/sites/proceed.htm) [Accessed January 21 2019]

  • 3

    Buerger CLorenz CBabic DHoppenbrouwers JHoman RNachabe R: Spine segmentation from C-arm CT data sets: application to region-of-interest volumes for spinal interventions. Proc SPIE 10135:101351N2017

  • 4

    Byrnes TJBarrick TRBell BAClark CA: Semiautomatic tractography: motor pathway segmentation in patients with intracranial vascular malformations. Clinical article. J Neurosurg 111:1321402009

  • 5

    Cohen J: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37461960

  • 6

    De Leener BCohen-Adad JKadoury S: Automatic segmentation of the spinal cord and spinal canal coupled with vertebral labeling. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 34:170517182015

  • 7

    De Silva TUneri AKetcha MDReaungamornrat SGoerres JJacobson MW: Registration of MRI to intraoperative radiographs for target localization in spinal interventions. Phys Med Biol 62:6847012017

  • 8

    Drazin DKim TTPolly DW JrJohnson JP: Introduction. Intraoperative spinal imaging and navigation. Neurosurg Focus 36(3):Introduction2014

  • 9

    Du JPFan YWu QNWang DHZhang JHao DJ: Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion among 3 image-guided navigation systems: systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 109:24302018

  • 10

    Ecabert OPeters JSchramm HLorenz Cvon Berg JWalker MJ: Automatic model-based segmentation of the heart in CT images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 27:118912012008

  • 11

    Elmi Terander ABurström GNachabe RSkulason HPedersen KFagerlund M: Pedicle screw placement with augmented reality surgical navigation with intraoperative 3D imaging: a first in-human prospective cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [epub ahead of print] 2018

  • 12

    Elmi-Terander ASkulason HSöderman MRacadio JHoman RBabic D: Surgical navigation technology based on augmented reality and integrated 3D intraoperative imaging: a spine cadaveric feasibility and accuracy study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:E1303E13112016

  • 13

    Gelalis IDPaschos NKPakos EEPolitis ANArnaoutoglou CMKarageorgos AC: Accuracy of pedicle screw placement: a systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand, fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 21:2472552012

  • 14

    Goerres JUneri ADe Silva TKetcha MReaungamornrat SJacobson M: Spinal pedicle screw planning using deformable atlas registration. Phys Med Biol 62:287128912017

  • 15

    Härtl RLam KSWang JKorge AKandziora FAudigé L: Worldwide survey on the use of navigation in spine surgery. World Neurosurg 79:1621722013

  • 16

    Helm PATeichman RHartmann SLSimon D: Spinal navigation and imaging: history, trends, and future. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 34:173817462015

  • 17

    Hojjat SPHardisty MRWhyne CM: Micro-computed tomography-based highly automated 3D segmentation of the rat spine for quantitative analysis of metastatic disease. J Neurosurg Spine 13:3673702010

  • 18

    Huang JJian FWu HLi H: An improved level set method for vertebra CT image segmentation. Biomed Eng Online 12:482013

  • 19

    Kim YKim D: A fully automatic vertebra segmentation method using 3D deformable fences. Comput Med Imaging Graph 33:3433522009

  • 20

    Klinder TOstermann JEhm MFranz AKneser RLorenz C: Automated model-based vertebra detection, identification, and segmentation in CT images. Med Image Anal 13:4714822009

  • 21

    Korez RIbragimov BLikar BPernuš FVrtovec T: A framework for automated spine and vertebrae interpolation-based detection and model-based segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 34:164916622015

  • 22

    Kosmopoulos VSchizas C: Pedicle screw placement accuracy: a meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:E111E1202007

  • 23

    Lo SFOtake YPuvanesarajah VWang ASUneri ADe Silva T: Automatic localization of target vertebrae in spine surgery: clinical evaluation of the LevelCheck registration algorithm. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:E476E4832015

  • 24

    Mandell JGLangelaan JWWebb AGSchiff SJ: Volumetric brain analysis in neurosurgery: Part 1. Particle filter segmentation of brain and cerebrospinal fluid growth dynamics from MRI and CT images. J Neurosurg Pediatr 15:1131242015

  • 25

    Mason APaulsen RBabuska JMRajpal SBurneikiene SNelson EL: The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems. J Neurosurg Spine 20:1962032014

  • 26

    Moses ZBMayer RRStrickland BAKretzer RMWolinsky JPGokaslan ZL: Neuronavigation in minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus 35(2):E122013

  • 27

    Otake YSchafer SStayman JWZbijewski WKleinszig GGraumann R: Automatic localization of vertebral levels in x-ray fluoroscopy using 3D-2D registration: a tool to reduce wrong-site surgery. Phys Med Biol 57:548555082012

  • 28

    Overley SCCho SKMehta AIArnold PM: Navigation and robotics in spinal surgery: where are we now? Neurosurgery 80(3S):S86–S992017

  • 29

    Peters JEcabert OMeyer CKneser RWeese J: Optimizing boundary detection via simulated search with applications to multi-modal heart segmentation. Med Image Anal 14:70–842010

  • 30

    Rajasekaran SVidyadhara SRamesh PShetty AP: Randomized clinical study to compare the accuracy of navigated and non-navigated thoracic pedicle screws in deformity correction surgeries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:E56E642007

  • 31

    Saddi KARousson MChefd’hotel CCheriet F: Global-to-local shape matching for liver segmentation in CT imaging in Heimann TStyner Mvan Ginneken B (eds): 3D Segmentation in the Clinic: A Grand Challenge2007 (http://mbi.dkfz-heidelberg.de/grand-challenge2007/sites/proceed.htm) [Accessed January 21 2019]

  • 32

    Scarone PVincenzo GDistefano DDel Grande FCianfoni APresilla S: Use of the Airo mobile intraoperative CT system versus the O-arm for transpedicular screw fixation in the thoracic and lumbar spine: a retrospective cohort study of 263 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 29:3974062018

  • 33

    Shin BJJames ARNjoku IUHärtl R: Pedicle screw navigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perforation risk for computer-navigated versus freehand insertion. J Neurosurg Spine 17:1131222012

  • 34

    Xiao RMiller JASabharwal NCLubelski DAlentado VJHealy AT: Clinical outcomes following spinal fusion using an intraoperative computed tomographic 3D imaging system. J Neurosurg Spine 26:6286372017

  • 35

    Yang ZJin Z: Modeling and specifying parametric adaptation mechanism for self-adaptive systems in Zowghi DJin Z (eds): Requirements Engineering. Berlin: Springer2014 pp 105119

  • 36

    Zhang WTakigawa TWu YSugimoto YTanaka MOzaki T: Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion in posterior scoliosis surgery: a comparison between intraoperative navigation and preoperative navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 26:175617642017

TrendMD

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 632 632 632
Full Text Views 96 96 96
PDF Downloads 61 61 61
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar