Automation in tibial implant loosening detection using deep-learning segmentation.
Authors
Affiliations (7)
Affiliations (7)
- Quantitative Healthcare Analysis (QurAI) Group, Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected].
- Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected].
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected].
- Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Quantitative Healthcare Analysis (QurAI) Group, Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Patients with recurrent complaints after total knee arthroplasty may suffer from aseptic implant loosening. Current imaging modalities do not quantify looseness of knee arthroplasty components. A recently developed and validated workflow quantifies the tibial component displacement relative to the bone from CT scans acquired under valgus and varus load. The 3D analysis approach includes segmentation and registration of the tibial component and bone. In the current approach, the semi-automatic segmentation requires user interaction, adding complexity to the analysis. The research question is whether the segmentation step can be fully automated while keeping outcomes indifferent. In this study, different deep-learning (DL) models for fully automatic segmentation are proposed and evaluated. For this, we employ three different datasets for model development (20 cadaveric CT pairs and 10 cadaveric CT scans) and evaluation (72 patient CT pairs). Based on the performance on the development dataset, the final model was selected, and its predictions replaced the semi-automatic segmentation in the current approach. Implant displacement was quantified by the rotation about the screw-axis, maximum total point motion, and mean target registration error. The displacement parameters of the proposed approach showed a statistically significant difference between fixed and loose samples in a cadaver dataset, as well as between asymptomatic and loose samples in a patient dataset, similar to the outcomes of the current approach. The methodological error calculated on a reproducibility dataset showed values that were not statistically significant different between the two approaches. The results of the proposed and current approaches showed excellent reliability for one and three operators on two datasets. The conclusion is that a full automation in knee implant displacement assessment is feasible by utilizing a DL-based segmentation model while maintaining the capability of distinguishing between fixed and loose implants.