BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Journal of Radiology (2005) 78, 587-595
© 2005 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/29830482
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cash, C J C
Right arrow Articles by Prager, R W
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cash, C J C
Right arrow Articles by Prager, R W

3D reconstruction of the skeletal anatomy of the normal neonatal foot using 3D ultrasound

C J C Cash, MCRP, FRCR 1 G M Treece, MA, PhD 2 L H Berman, MRCP, FRCR 1 A H Gee, MA, PhD 2 and R W Prager, MA, PhD 2

1 University Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QQ and 2 Cambridge University Department of Engineering, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK



View larger version (10K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. The position and movement of the transducer over the medial aspect of the foot for (a) a hindfoot and (b) a forefoot examination.

 


View larger version (77K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. The full data set is shown on (a) the left, each B-scan is represented by a white "soccer goal-post" shape. A sagittal plane through the data set is chosen (arrows) and the reformatted data (dashed border) is demonstrated on (b) the right against one of the original B-scans (solid border). a. talar head, b. navicular, c. medial cuneiform, d. intermediate cuneiform, e. lateral cuneiform, f. first metatarsal, g. approximate position of the calcaneum.

 


View larger version (48K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. The full data set is shown on (a) the left. One of the manually segmented B-scans at the level of the lower tibial epiphysis/proximal talar body is illustrated in (b). The complete series of segmented outlines is demonstrated in (c).

 


View larger version (51K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. Illustration of the high resolution of the images. The distance between the two white arrowheads is 4.6 mm representing the sagittal dimension of the navicular.

 


View larger version (32K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 5. (a) An axial reformat through the foot from a forefoot data set. Annotated illustration of the reformat is shown in (b).

 


View larger version (75K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 6. (a) A sagittal multiplanar reformat (MPR) through the foot. (b) Operator induced misregistration can be corrected after acquisition. (c) The anatomy and the plane of the MPR.

 


View larger version (129K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 7. (a) The original B-scan through the talo-navicular joint. Manual segmentation of the talus (dashed line) from the navicular (solid line) is shown in (b), but would have been difficult without the aid of multiple reformats.

 


View larger version (77K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 8. (a) The original B-scan at the talo-navicular joint. Sagittal and axial reformats are shown in (b) and (c), respectively. The white arrowhead in the sagittal reformat (b) indicates the dorsal aspect of the navicular (N). Its corresponding position on the original image (a) is also shown as a white arrowhead. A reformat in the axial z-plane (c) shows the mediolateral extent of the navicular (white arrow). Landmark X indicates the lateral aspect of the navicular shown on the reformatted image (c) and original image (a). These reformats and reference points were used to segment the talus (T) from the navicular (N) on the original B-scan as accurately as possible.

 


View larger version (58K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 9. There is difficulty in distinguishing the talar dome (TD) from the distal tibial epiphyseal edge on the B-scan (a), however a coronal reformat of the data (b) helps to identify the superior margin of the talar dome as illustrated by landmark X on both the reformatted and original images. On image (b) the width of the medial malleolus (MM) is just 3.7 mm. (c) An annotation of the reformatted data.

 


View larger version (64K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 10. (a) The original B-scan. (b) There is clearer definition of the cartilaginous border of the navicular having displayed the maximum intensity projection from a 1 mm stack of reformatted images either side of the original B-scan.

 


View larger version (78K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 11. (a) Illustration of the ossified distal shaft of the tibia and fibula in transverse section from original images. Due to the high reflectivity of ossified bone, segmentation was in part estimated (b).

 


View larger version (128K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 12. An original B-scan from the data set illustrates the low reflectivity of the tibial (te) and fibular epiphyses (fe).

 


View larger version (45K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 13. (a) A 1 mm maximum intensity projection through the data set in the same plane as the original B-scans, illustrates the talus with respect to the medial malleolus and navicular. Its ossified central nucleus prohibits accurate segmentation of its lateral border with this orientation of the transducer. (b) Illustration of the annotated anatomy.

 


View larger version (36K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 14. Two projections of a surface rendered left hindfoot with the distal shafts of the tibia and fibula, viewed from (a) the front and (b) from above showing the talonavicular alignment.

 


View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 15. Surface rendered outlines of the right forefoot from two projections.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2005 by the British Institute of Radiology.