Distribution and variability study of the femur cortical thickness from computer tomography

REFERENCES

• AdamF, HammerD, PapeD, KohnD. 2002. Femoral anatomy, computed tomography and computer-aided design of prosthetic implants. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 122:262–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BarnettE, NordinB. 1960. The radiological diagnosis of osteoporosis: a new approach. Clin Radiol. 11(3):166–174.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BoussonV, Le BrasA, RoqueplanF, KangY, MittonD, KoltaS, BergotC, SkalliW, VicautE, KalenderW, EngelkeK, LaredoJD. 2006. Volumetric quantitative computed tomography of the proximal femur: relationships linking geometric and densitometric variables to bone strength. Role for compact bone. Osteoporosis Int. 17:855–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BråtenM, NordbyA, TerjesenT, RossvollI. 1992. Bone loss after locked intramedullary nailing. Acta Orthop. 63(3):310–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaibi Y. 2010. Adaptation des méthodes de reconstruction 3D rapides par stéréoradiographie: modélisation du membre inférieur et calcul des indices cliniques en présence de déformation structurale.
   Google Scholar
• ChaibiY, CressonT, AubertB, HausselleJ, NeyretP, HaugerO, de GuiseJA, SkalliW. 2011. Fast 3D reconstruction of the lower limb using a parametric model and statistical inferences and clinical measurements calculation from biplanar X-rays. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. 1:1.
   Google Scholar
• ChanAH, CrowderCM, RogersTL. 2007. Variation in cortical bone histology within the human femur and its impact on estimating age at death. Am J Phys Anthropol. 132(1):80–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CrokerSL, ClementJG, DonlonD. 2009. A comparison of cortical bone thickness in the femoral midshaft of humans and two non-human mammals. HOMO J Comp Hum Biol. 60(6):551–565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de BruinPW, KapteinBL, de BruinPW, KapteinBL, StoelBC, ReiberJH, RozingPM, ValstarER. 2008. Image-based RSA: roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis based on 2D-3D image registration. J Biomech. 41(1):155–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FokapuO, GirardJ.-P. 1993. ECG time and frequency evolution: beat to beat analysis [French]. Innov Tech Biol Med. 14(1):102–112.
   Google Scholar
• HangartnerTN, GilsanzV. 1996. Evaluation of cortical bone by computed tomography. J Bone Mineral Res. 11(10):1518–1525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HöglerW, BlimkieCJ, CowellCT, KempAF, BriodyJ, WiebeP, Farpour-LambertN, DuncanCS, WoodheadHJ. 2003. A comparison of bone geometry and cortical density at the mid-femur between prepuberty and young adulthood using magnetic resonance imaging. Bone. 33(5):771–778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HumbertL, De GuiseJA, AubertB, GodboutB, SkalliW. 2009. 3D reconstruction of the spine from biplanar X-rays using parametric models based on transversal and longitudinal inferences. Med Eng Phys. 31(6):681–687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JolivetE, SandozB, LaporteS, MittonD, SkalliW. 2010. Fast 3D reconstruction of the rib cage from biplanar radiographs. Med Biol Eng Comput. 48(8):821–828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KangY, EngelkeK, KalenderWA. 2003. A new accurate and precise 3-D segmentation method for skeletal structures in volumetric CT data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 22(5):586–598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaineH-J, KontolaK, LehtoMU, PitkänenM, JarskeP, LindholmTS. 1997. Image processing for femoral endosteal anatomy detection: description and testing of a computed tomography based program. Phys Med Biol. 42(4):673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaporteS, SkalliW, de GuiseJA, LavasteF, MittonD. 2003. A biplanar reconstruction method based on 2D and 3D contours: application to the distal femur. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. 6(1):1–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MayhewPM, ThomasCD, ClementJG, LoveridgeN, BeckTJ, BonfieldW, BurgoyneCJ, ReeveJ. 2005. Relation between age, femoral neck cortical stability, and hip fracture risk. Lancet. 366(9480):129–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NoblePC, AlexanderJW, LindahlLJ, YewDT, GranberryWM, TullosHS. 1988. The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 235:148–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NoblePC, BoxGG, KamaricE, FinkMJ, AlexanderJW, TullosHS. 1995. The effect of aging on the shape of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 316:31–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PanJ, TompkinsWJ. 1985. A real-time QRS detection algorithm. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 32(3):230–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PooleKES, TreeceGM, RidgwayGR, MayhewPM, BorggrefeJ, GeeAH. 2011. Targeted regeneration of bone in the osteoporotic human femur. PLoS ONE. 6(1):e16190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PreidlerKW, BrossmannJ, DaenenB, PedowitzR, De MaeseneerM, TrudellD, ResnickD. 1997. Measurements of cortical thickness in experimentally created endosteal bone lesions: a comparison of radiography, CT, MR imaging, and anatomic sections. Am J Roentgenol. 168(6):1501–1505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PrevrhalS, EngelkeK, KalenderWA. 1999. Accuracy limits for the determination of cortical width and density: the influence of object size and CT imaging parameters. Phys Med Biol. 44(3):751.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RobertsonDD, WalkerPS, GranholmJW, NelsonPC, WeissPJ, FishmanEK, MagidD. 1987. Design of custom hip stem prostheses using three-dimensional CT modeling. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 11(5):804–849.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SeebeckJ, GoldhahnJ, StädeleH, MessmerP, MorlockMM, SchneiderE. 2004. Effect of cortical thickness and cancellous bone density on the holding strength of internal fixator screws. J Orthop Res. 22(6):1237–1242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SerrurierA, QuijanoS, NizardR, SkalliW. 2012. Robust femur condyle disambiguation on biplanar X-rays. Med Eng Phys., in press.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SmithHW, De SmetAA, LevneE. 1982. Measurement of cortical thickness in a human cadaver femur. Conventional roentgenography versus computed tomography. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 169:269–274.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• StephensonP, SeedhomBB. 1999. Cross-sectional geometry of the human femur in the mid-third region. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 213(2):159–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SuganoN, OhzonoK, NishiiT, HaraguchiK, SakaiT, OchiT. 1998. Computed-tomography-based computer preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg. 3(6):320–324.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• TreeceGM, GeeAH, MayhewPM, PooleKE. 2010. High resolution cortical bone thickness measurement from clinical CT data. Med Image Anal. 14(3):276–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TrochuF. 1993. A contouring program based on dual kriging interpolation. Eng Comput. 9(3):160–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VirtamaP, TelkkaA. 1962. Cortical thickness as an estimate of mineral content of human humerus and femur. Br J Radiol. 35:632–633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZhengG, GollmerS, SchumannS, DongX, FeilkasT, González BallesterMA. 2009. A 2D/3D correspondence building method for reconstruction of a patient-specific 3D bone surface model using point distribution models and calibrated X-ray images. Med Image Anal. 13(6):883–899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar