Charles Pioger, Laura Marin, Yvon Gautier, Julien Cléchet, Pierre Imbert, Christian Lutz, Étienne Cavaignac, Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet
{"title":"Three-dimensional reconstruction of the knee joint based on automated 1.5T magnetic resonance image segmentation: A feasibility study","authors":"Charles Pioger, Laura Marin, Yvon Gautier, Julien Cléchet, Pierre Imbert, Christian Lutz, Étienne Cavaignac, Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet","doi":"10.1002/jeo2.70361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To validate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) bone and cartilage reconstructions of the distal femur and proximal tibia derived from 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), using fully automated and semi-automated segmentation methods, compared to surface laser scanning (LS) as the reference standard.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Eleven fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were imaged using a 1.5 T MRI scanner. Manual (MS), fully automated (A), and semi-automated (SA) segmentations were performed to generate 3D models of the distal femur and proximal tibia. A transformer-based deep learning model (UNet-R) was used for automated segmentation. Laser surface scanning provided high-resolution ground-truth 3D models. Point-to-surface distances between MRI-based and LS-derived models were calculated to assess reconstruction accuracy. Bland-Altman analyses were performed to compare segmentation methods. Time to generate 3D models was recorded for each method.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The mean absolute point-to-surface distance for femoral models was 1.19 mm (±0.42) for MRI A, 1.05 mm (±0.09) for MRI SA, and 0.99 mm (±0.08) for MRI MS. For tibial models, the corresponding values were 1.54 mm (±1.02), 1.03 mm (±0.17), and 0.93 mm (±0.14), respectively. MRI A showed larger variability, which required manual correction. Time analysis revealed significant efficiency gains: 27 s for MRI A, 1520 s for MRI SA, and 14,191 s for MRI MS (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots confirmed improved agreement of MRI SA with MRI MS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>MRI-based 3D reconstructions of the knee using a 1.5 T system and semi-automated segmentation achieved sub-millimetre accuracy comparable to manual segmentation and significantly outperformed fully automated models in precision, while substantially reducing segmentation time. These findings support the integration of AI-assisted 3D reconstruction into preoperative planning workflows for knee ligament surgery, offering a reliable, radiation-free alternative to CT-based modelling.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\n \n <p>Level IV, controlled laboratory study.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics","volume":"12 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jeo2.70361","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeo2.70361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
To validate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) bone and cartilage reconstructions of the distal femur and proximal tibia derived from 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), using fully automated and semi-automated segmentation methods, compared to surface laser scanning (LS) as the reference standard.
Methods
Eleven fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were imaged using a 1.5 T MRI scanner. Manual (MS), fully automated (A), and semi-automated (SA) segmentations were performed to generate 3D models of the distal femur and proximal tibia. A transformer-based deep learning model (UNet-R) was used for automated segmentation. Laser surface scanning provided high-resolution ground-truth 3D models. Point-to-surface distances between MRI-based and LS-derived models were calculated to assess reconstruction accuracy. Bland-Altman analyses were performed to compare segmentation methods. Time to generate 3D models was recorded for each method.
Results
The mean absolute point-to-surface distance for femoral models was 1.19 mm (±0.42) for MRI A, 1.05 mm (±0.09) for MRI SA, and 0.99 mm (±0.08) for MRI MS. For tibial models, the corresponding values were 1.54 mm (±1.02), 1.03 mm (±0.17), and 0.93 mm (±0.14), respectively. MRI A showed larger variability, which required manual correction. Time analysis revealed significant efficiency gains: 27 s for MRI A, 1520 s for MRI SA, and 14,191 s for MRI MS (p < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots confirmed improved agreement of MRI SA with MRI MS.
Conclusions
MRI-based 3D reconstructions of the knee using a 1.5 T system and semi-automated segmentation achieved sub-millimetre accuracy comparable to manual segmentation and significantly outperformed fully automated models in precision, while substantially reducing segmentation time. These findings support the integration of AI-assisted 3D reconstruction into preoperative planning workflows for knee ligament surgery, offering a reliable, radiation-free alternative to CT-based modelling.