Statistical shape model-based prediction of tibiofemoral cartilage

References

• Albrecht T, Lüthi M, Gerig T, Vetter T. 2013. Posterior shape models. J Orthop Sci. 17(8):959–973.
   Google Scholar
• An VV, Sivakumar BS, Phan K, Levy YD, Bruce WJ. 2017. Accuracy of MRI-based vs. CT-based patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Sci. 22(1):116–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andriacchi TP, Koo S, Scanlan SF. 2009. Gait mechanics influence healthy cartilage morphology and osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 91(Suppl 1):95–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr AJ, Dube B, Hensor EMA, Kingsbury SR, Peat G, Bowes MA, Sharples LD, Conaghan PG. 2016. The relationship between three-dimensional knee MRI bone shape and total knee replacement-A case control study: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Rheumatology (Oxford). 55(9):1585–1593.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bookstein FLF. 1989. Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 11(6):567–585.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerveri P, Sacco C, Olgiati G, Manzotti A, Baroni G. 2017. 2D/3D reconstruction of the distal femur using statistical shape models addressing personalized surgical instruments in knee arthroplasty: a feasibility analysis. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 13:e1823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cootes TF, Taylor C, Cooper D, Graham J. 1995. Active shape models-their training and application. Comput Vis Image Understand. 61(1):38–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courtis RP, Aram L, Stauffer C, Vincent G, Cyr AJ, Bowes M, Maletsky P. 2015. Active shape modelling accurately characterizes knee cartilage geometry in the design of CT-based patient-specific cutting guides for knee arthroplasty. Orthopaedic Research Society Annual Meeting; March 28-31; Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Danckaers F, Huysmans T, Lacko D, Ledda A, Verwulgent S, Van Dongen S, Sijbers J. 2014. Correspondence preserving elastic surface registration with shape model prior. Proceedings of the International Conference on Pattern Recognition; August; Stockholm, Sweden: IEEE. p. 2143–2148.
   Google Scholar
• Davies R, Twining C, Taylor C. 2008. Statistical models of shape: optimization and evaluation. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• DiCiccio TJ, Efron B. 1996. Bootstrap confidence intervals. Stat Sci. 11(3):189–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Favre J, Erhart-Hledik JC, Chehab EF, Andriacchi TP. 2016. Baseline ambulatory knee kinematics are associated with changes in cartilage thickness in osteoarthritic patients over 5 years. J Biomech. 49(9):1859–1864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gower JC. 1975. Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika. 40(1):33–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heimann T, Meinzer HP. 2009. Statistical shape models for 3D medical image segmentation: a review. Med Image Anal. 13(4):543–563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heimann T, Morrison B. 2010. Segmentation of knee images: a grand challenge. In: Jiang, T, Navab, N, Pluim, JPW, Viergever, M, editors. Proceedings of MICCAI Workshop on Medical Image Analysis for the Clinic; September 20-24. Beijing, China: Springer, Berlin. p. 207–214.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson JM. 2013. Analysis, segmentation and prediction of knee cartilage using statistical shape models [dissertation]. Knoxville (TN): University of Tennessee.
   Google Scholar
• Jolliffe IT. 2002. Principal component analysis. 2nd ed. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Koo S, Andriacchi TP. 2007. A comparison of the influence of global functional loads vs. local contact anatomy on articular cartilage thickness at the knee. J Biomech. 40(13):2961–2966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koo S, Rylander JH, Andriacchi TP. 2011. Knee joint kinematics during walking influences the spatial cartilage thickness distribution in the knee. J Biomech. 44(7):1405–1409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorensen WE, Cline HE. 1987. Marching cubes: a high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. In: Maureen C. Stone, editor. Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques - SIGGRAPH ’87; July 27-31; Anaheim, CA, USA. New York, USA: ACM. p. 163–169.
   Google Scholar
• Mattei L, Pellegrino P, Calo M, Bistolfi A, Castoldi F. 2016. Patient specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a state of the art. Ann Transl Med. 4(7):126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plessers K, Vanden Berghe P, Van Dijck C, Wirix-Speetjens R, Debeer P, Jonkers I, Vander Sloten J. 2018. Virtual reconstruction of glenoid bone defects using a statistical shape model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 27(1):160–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigues AST, Gutierres MAP, Rodrigues AST, Gutierres MAP. 2017. Patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. Should we adopt it? Rev Brasil Ortop. 52(3):242–250.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schotanus M, Sollie R, van Haaren E, Hendrickx R, Jansen E, Kort N. 2016. A radiological analysis of the difference between MRI- and CT-based patient-specific matched guides for total knee arthroplasty from the same manufacturer: a randomised controlled trial. J Am Coll Radiol. 98B(6):786–792.
   Google Scholar
• Sistrom CL, McKay NL. 2005. Costs, charges, and revenues for hospital diagnostic imaging procedures: differences by modality and hospital characteristics. J Arthroplasty. 2(6):511–519.
   Google Scholar
• Slover JD, Rubash HE, Malchau H, Bosco JA. 2012. Cost-effectiveness analysis of custom total knee cutting blocks. J Orthop Res. 27(2):180–185.
   Google Scholar
• Smoger LM, Fitzpatrick CK, Clary CW, Cyr AJ, Maletsky LP, Rullkoetter PJ, Laz PJ. 2015. Statistical modeling to characterize relationships between knee anatomy and kinematics. J Orthop Res. 33(11):1620–1630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thienpont E, Schwab PE, Fennema P. 2017. Efficacy of patient-specific instruments in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 99(6):521–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valette S, Chassery JM, Prost R. 2008. Generic remeshing of 3D triangular meshes with metric-dependent discrete voronoi diagrams. Med Eng Phys. 14(2):369–381.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Broeck J, Vereecke E, Wirix-Speetjens R, Vander Sloten J. 2014. Segmentation accuracy of long bones. Med Eng Phys. 36(7):949–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Berghe P, Demol J, Gelaude F, Vander Sloten J. 2016. Virtual anatomical reconstruction of large acetabular bone defects using a statistical shape model. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 5842(December):1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Watters TS, Mather RC, Browne JA, Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Bolognesi MP. 2011. Analysis of procedure-related costs and proposed benefits of using patient-specific approach in total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Orthop Adv. 20(2):112–116.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu XD, Xiang BY, Schotanus MG, Liu ZH, Chen Y, Huang W. 2017. CT- versus MRI-based patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgeon. 15(6):336–348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang YM, Rueckert D, Bull AMJ. 2008. Predicting the shapes of bones at a joint: application to the shoulder. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng. 11(1):19–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar