Virtual reconstruction of pelvic tumor defects based on a gender-specific statistical shape model

References

• Malawer M, Sugarbaker P. Musculoskeletal Cancer Surgery: Treatment of Sarcomas and Allied Diseases. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtThe Netherlands 2001
   Google Scholar
• Enneking WF, Dunham WK. Resection and reconstruction for primary neoplasms involving the innominate bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978; 60: 731–746
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krieg AH, Mani M, Speth BM, Stalley PD. Extracorporeal irradiation for pelvic reconstruction in Ewing's sarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91: 395–400
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Delloye C, Banse X, Brichard B, Docquier PL, Cornu O. Pelvic reconstruction with a structural pelvic allograft after resection of a malignant bone tumor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 579–587
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreutz M, Sendhoff B, Igel C. EALib: A C++ class library for evolutionary algorithms. Institute für Neuroinformatik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum 2008
   Google Scholar
• Verma NN, Kuo KN, Gitelis S. Acetabular osteoarticular allograft after Ewing's sarcoma resection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004, 419: 149–154
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aljassir F, Beadel GP, Turcotte RE, Griffin AM, Bell RS, Wunder JS, Isler MH. Outcome after pelvic sarcoma resection reconstructed with saddle prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005, 438: 36–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastian L, Hüfner T, Mossinger E, Geerling J, Goesling T, Busche M, Kendoff D, Bading S, Rosenthal H, Krettek C. [Integration of modern technologies in therapy of sarcomas of the pelvis. Computer-assisted hemipelvectomy and implantation of a “custom-made” Bonit gentamycin coated partial pelvic prosthesis] [In German]. Unfallchirurg 2003; 106: 956–962
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falkinstein Y, Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR. Reconstruction of type II pelvic resection with a new peri-acetabular reconstruction endoprosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90: 371–376
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gebert C, Gosheger G, Winkelmann W. Hip transposition as a universal surgical procedure for periacetabular tumors of the pelvis. J Surg Oncol 2009; 99: 169–172
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozaki T, Hillmann A, Bettin D, Wuisman P, Winkelmann W. High complication rates with pelvic allografts. Experience of 22 sarcoma resections. Acta Orthop Scand 1996; 67: 333–338
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozaki T, Hoffmann C, Hillmann A, Gosheger G, Lindner N, Winkelmann W. Implantation of hemipelvic prosthesis after resection of sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002, 396: 197–205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krol Z, Chapuis J, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Langlotz F, Zeilhofer H-F. Preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation in the reconstructive craniofacial surgery. J Med Informatics Technol 2005; 9: 83–89
   Google Scholar
• Paul L, Docquier P-L, Cartiaux O, Cornu O, Delloye C, Banse X. Inaccuracy in selection of massive bone allograft using template comparison method. Cell Tissue Bank 2008; 9: 83–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul L, Docquier P-L, Cartiaux O, Cornu O, Delloye C, Banse X. Selection of massive bone allografts using shape-matching 3-dimensional registration. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 250–255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cootes TF, Taylor CJ, Cooper DH, Graham J. Active shape models – their training and application. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 1995; 61: 38–59
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heimann T, Meinzer H-P. Statistical shape models for 3D medical image segmentation: A review. Med Image Anal 2009; 13: 543–563
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamecker H, Seebass M, Hege HC, Deuflhard P, A 3D statistical shape model of the pelvic bone for segmentation. In: Fitzpatrick JM, Sonka M, editors. Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging 2004: Image Processing, San Diego, CA, February 2004. Proc SPIE 2004;5370:1341–1351
   Google Scholar
• Meller S, Kalender WA, Building a statistical shape model of the pelvis. In: Lemke HU, Vannier MW, Inamura K, Farman AG, Doi K, Reiber JHC, editors. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress and Exhibition on Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery (CARS 2004), Chicago, IL, June 2004. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004. pp 561–566
   Google Scholar
• Thompson S, Penney G, Buie D, Dasgupta P, Hawkes D, Use of a CT statistical deformation model for multi-modal pelvic bone segmentation. In: Reinhardt JM, Pluim JPW, editors. Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging 2008: Image Processing, San Diego, CA, February 2008. Proc SPIE 2008;6914:69141O
   Google Scholar
• Chan CSK, Barratt DC, Edwards PJ, Penney GP, Slomczykowski M, Carter TJ, Hawkes DJ, Cadaver validation of the use of ultrasound for 3D model instantiation of bony anatomy in image guided orthopaedic surgery. In: Barillot C, Haynor DR, Hellier P, editors. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI 2004), Saint-Malo, France, September 2004. Part II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3217. Berlin: Springer; 2004. pp 397–404
   Google Scholar
• Seim H, Kainmueller D, Heller M, Lamecker H, Zachow S, Hege HC, Automatic segmentation of the pelvic bones from CT data based on a statistical shape model. In: Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop on Visual Computing for Biomedicine (VCBM), Delft, The Netherlands, October 2008. pp 93–100
   Google Scholar
• Skadlubowicz P, Krol Z, Wrobel Z, Hefti F, Krieg A. Using of statistical shape models for pelvis reconstruction in the oncologic surgery. J Med Informatics Technol 2009; 13: 151–156
   Google Scholar
• Skadlubowicz P, Krol Z, Wrobel Z, Hefti F, Krieg A. Reconstruction of the pelvic region based on the statistical shape modeling. Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing 2010; 69: 165–173
   Google Scholar
• Skadlubowicz P, Krol Z, Wrobel Z, Hefti F, Krieg A. Biometrical approach in the pelvis surgical reconstructive treatment. Int J Biometrics 2011; 3: 76–84
   Google Scholar
• Withey DJ, Koles ZJ, Medical image segmentation: methods and software. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Meeting of the 6th International Symposium on Noninvasive Functional Source Imaging of the Brain and Heart and the International Conference on Functional Biomedical Imaging, Hangzhou, China, October 2007. pp 143–146
   Google Scholar
• Dunteman GH. Principal Components Analysis. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA 1989
   Google Scholar
• Jolliffe I. Principal Component Analysis. Springer, New York 2002
   Google Scholar
• Lorensen WE, Cline HE. Marching Cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 1987; 21: 163–169
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh J. Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts and Recent Advances. SPIE Press, Washington, DC 2003
   Google Scholar
• Raja V, Fernandes K. Reverse Engineering: An Industrial Perspective. Springer Verlag, London 2008
   Google Scholar
• Bookstein FL. Principal Warps - thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal 1989; 11: 567–585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder W, Martin K, Lorensen B, Avila L, Avila R, Law C. The Visualization Toolkit. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ 1998
   Google Scholar
• Davies RH, Cootes TF, Twining CJ, Taylor CJ, An information theoretic approach to statistical shape modelling. In: Cootes TF, Taylor CJ, editors. Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC 2001), Manchester, UK, September 2001. British Machine Vision Association; 2001. pp 3–11
   Google Scholar
• Edwards GJ, Cootes TF, Taylor CJ, Advances in active appearance models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Kerkyra, Corfu, September 1999. IEEE Computer Society; 1999. pp 137–142
   Google Scholar
• McInerney T, Terzopoulos D. Deformable models in medical image analysis: A survey. Med Image Anal 1996; 1: 91–108
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Osyczka A. Evolutionary Algorithms for Single and Multicriteria Design Optimization. Physica-Verlag, New York 2002
   Google Scholar
• Kramer O. Self-Adaptive Heuristics for Evolutionary Computation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin 2008
   Google Scholar
• Borgefors G. Hierarchical chamfer matching - a parametric edge matching algorithm. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal 1988; 10: 849–865
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besl PJ, McKay ND. A method for registration of 3D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal 1992; 14: 239–256
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heitz G, Rohlfing T, Maurer CR, Jr. Statistical shape model generation using nonrigid deformation of a template mesh. In: Fitzpatrick JM, Reinhardt JM, editors. Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging 2005: Image Processing, San Diego, CA, February 2005. Proc SPIE 2004;5747:1411–1421
   Google Scholar
• Zachow S, Lamecker H, Elsholtz B, Stiller M, Reconstruction of mandibular dysplasia using a statistical 3D shape model. In: Lemke HU, Inamura K, Doi K, Vannier MW, Farman AG, editors. Proceedings of the 19th International Congress and Exhibition on Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery (CARS 2005), Berlin, Germany, June 2005. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. pp 1238–1243
   Google Scholar
• Barratt DC, Chan CSK, Edwards PJ, Penney GP, Slomczykowski M, Carter TJ, Hawkes DJ. Instantiation and registration of statistical shape models of the femur and pelvis using 3D ultrasound imaging. Med Image Anal 2008; 12: 358–374
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dworzak J, Lamecker H, von Berg J, Klinder T, Lorenz C, Kainmüller D, Seim H, Hege HC, Zachow S. 3D reconstruction of the human rib cage from 2D projection images using a statistical shape model. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2010; 5: 111–124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prassopoulos PK, Faflia CP, Voloudaki AE, Gourtsoyiannis NC. Sacroiliac joints: Anatomical variants on CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999; 23: 323–327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badii M, Shin S, Torreggiani WC, Jankovic B, Gustafson P, Munk PL, Esdaile JM. Pelvic bone asymmetry in 323 study participants receiving abdominal CT scans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28: 1335–1339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperstein R, Lew M. The relationship between pelvic torsion and anatomical leg length inequality: A review of the literature. J Chiropr Med 2009; 8: 107–118
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cummings G, Scholz JP, Barnes K. The effect of imposed leg length difference on pelvic bone symmetry. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993; 18: 368–373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnat R, Saulicz E, Biały M, Kłaptocz P. Does pelvic asymmetry always mean pathology? Analysis of mechanical factors leading to the asymmetry. J Human Kinetics 2009; 21: 23–32
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong KC, Kumta SM, Chiu KH, Cheung KW, Leung KS, Unwin P, Wong MCM. Computer assisted pelvic tumor resection and reconstruction with a custom-made prosthesis using an innovative adaptation and its validation. Comput Aided Surg 2007; 12: 225–232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar