3D reconstruction of the proximal femur with low-dose digital stereoradiography

References

• Burr DB, Cook LT, Martin NL, Asher M. Measurement accuracy of proximal femoral geometry using biplanar radiography. J Pediatr Orthop 1981;1(2):171–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay RM, Jaki KA, Skaggs DL. The effect of femoral rotation on the projected femoral neck-shaft angle. J Pediatr Orthop 2000;20(6):736–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN, Esteve P, de Roguin B. The morphology of the proximal femur. A three-dimensional radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992;74(1):28–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gautsch TL, Johnson EE, Seeger LL. True three dimensional stereographic display of 3D reconstructed CT scans of the pelvis and acetabulum. Clin Orthop 1994(305):138–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cline HE, Dumoulin CL, Hart HR Jr, Lorensen WE, Ludke S. 3D reconstruction of the brain from magnetic resonance images using a connectivity algorithm. Magn Reson Imaging 1987;5(5):345–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortele KJ, McTavish J, Ros PR. Current techniques of computed tomography. Helical CT, multidetector CT, and 3D reconstruction. Clin Liver Dis 2002;6(1):29–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shrimpton JA, Jones DG, Hillier MC, Wall BF, Le Heron JC, Faulkner K. Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 2: Dosimetric aspects. NRPB-R249 NRPB, Chilton 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Laporte S, Skalli W, de Guise JA, Lavaste F, Mitton D. A biplanar reconstruction method based on 2D and 3D contours: Application to the distal femur. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2003;6(1):1–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kalifa G, Charpak Y, Maccia C, Fery-Lemonnier E, Bloch J, Boussard JM, Attal M, Dubousset J, Adamsbaum C. Evaluation of a new low-dose digital x-ray device: first dosimetric and clinical results in children. Pediatr Radiol 1998; 28(7):557–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landry C, de Guise JA, Dansereau J, Labelle H, Skalli W, Zeller R, Lavaste F. [Computer graphic analysis of the three dimensional deformities of scoliotic vertebrae]. Ann Chir 1997;51(8):868–74.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kass M, Witkin A, Terzopoulos D. Snakes: Active contour models. Int J Comput Vision 1988:321–31.
   Google Scholar
• Mitton D, Landry C, Veron S, Skalli W, Lavaste F, de Guise JA. 3D reconstruction method from biplanar radiography using non-stereocorresponding points and elastic deformable meshes. Med Biol Eng Comput 2000;38(2):133–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitulescu A, Semaan I, de Guise JA, Leborgne P, Adamsbaum C, Skalli W. Validation of the non-stereo corresponding points stereoradiographic 3D reconstruction technique. Med Biol Eng Comput 2001;39(2):152–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behiels G, Maes F, Vandermeulen D, Suetens P. Evaluation of image features and search strategies for segmentation of bone structures in radiographs using Active Shape Models. Med Image Anal 2002;6(1):47–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cody DD, Gross GJ, Hou FJ, Spencer HJ, Goldstein SA, Fyhrie DP. Femoral strength is better predicted by finite element models than QCT and DXA. J Biomech 1999; 32(10):1013–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng XG, Lowet G, Boonen S, Nicholson PH, Brys P, Nijs J, Dequeker J. Assessment of the strength of proximal femur in vitro: relationship to femoral bone mineral density and femoral geometry. Bone 1997;20(3):213–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergot C, Bousson V, Meunier A, Laval-Jeantet M, Laredo JD. Hip fracture risk and proximal femur geometry from DXA scans. Osteoporos Int 2002;13(7):542–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck TJ, Ruff CB, Warden KE, Scott WW Jr, Rao GU. Predicting femoral neck strength from bone mineral data. A structural approach. Invest Radiol 1990;25(1):6–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kukla C, PichlW, Prokesch R, Jacyniak W, Heinze G, Gatterer R, Heinz T. Femoral neck fracture after removal of the standard gamma interlocking nail: a cadaveric study to determine factors influencing the biomechanical properties of the proximal femur. J Biomech 2001;34(12):1519–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kukla C, Gaebler C, Pichl RW, Prokesch R, Heinze G, Heinz T. Predictive geometric factors in a standardized model of femoral neck fracture. Experimental study of cadaveric human femurs. Injury 2002;33(5):427–33.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng XG, Nicholson PH, Boonen S, Brys P, Lowet G, Nijs J, Dequeker J. Effects of anteversion on femoral bone mineral density and geometry measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: a cadaver study. Bone 1997;21(1):113–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faulkner KG, Cummings SR, Black D, Palermo L, Gluer CC, Genant HK. Simple measurement of femoral geometry predicts hip fracture: the study of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 1993;8(10):1211–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lequesne MG, Laredo JD. The faux profil (oblique view) of the hip in the standing position. Contribution to the evaluation of osteoarthritis of the adult hip. Ann Rheum Dis 1998;57(11):676–81.
   Google Scholar
• Gluer CC, Cummings SR, Pressman A, Li J, Gluer K, Faulkner KG, Grampp S, Genant HK. Prediction of hip fractures from pelvic radiographs: the study of osteoporotic fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9(5):671–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnudi S, Ripamonti C, Gualtieri G, Malavolta N. Geometry of proximal femur in the prediction of hip fracture in osteoporotic women. Br J Radiol 1999;72(860):729–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinilla TP, Boardman KC, Bouxsein ML, Myers ER, Hayes WC. Impact direction from a fall influences the failure load of the proximal femur as much as age-related bone loss. Calcif Tissue Int 1996;58(4):231–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michelotti J, Clark J. Femoral neck length and hip fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res 1999;14(10):1714–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar