Technical Brief

Effect of Calibration Error on Bone Tracking Accuracy With Fluoroscopy

[+] Author and Article Information
Luca Tersi

Health Sciences and Technologies - Interdepartmental
Center for Industrial Research (HST - ICIR),
University of Bologna,
Via Cavalcavia 797,
Cesena (FC) 47521, Italy
e-mail: luca.tersi@unibo.it

Rita Stagni

Assistant Professor
Health Sciences and Technologies - Interdepartmental
Center for Industrial Research (HST - ICIR),
University of Bologna,
Via Cavalcavia 797,
Cesena (FC) 47521, Italy;
Department of Electric,
Electronic and Information Engineering,
“Guglielmo Marconi” (DEI),
University of Bologna,
Viale Risorgimento 2,
Bologna 40136, Italy
e-mail: rita.stagni@unibo.it

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received September 20, 2013; final manuscript received February 3, 2014; accepted manuscript posted March 6, 2014; published online April 10, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Paul Rullkoetter.

J Biomech Eng 136(5), 054502 (Apr 10, 2014) (5 pages) Paper No: BIO-13-1438; doi: 10.1115/1.4027058 History: Received September 20, 2013; Revised February 03, 2014; Accepted March 06, 2014

Model-based 3D-fluoroscopy can quantify joint kinematics with 1 mm and 1 deg accuracy level. A calibration based on the acquisition of devices of known geometry is usually applied to size the system. This study aimed at quantifying the sensitivity of the fluoroscopic pose estimation accuracy specifically to errors in the calibration process, excluding other sources of error. X-ray focus calibration error was quantified for different calibration setups, and its propagation to the pose estimation was characterized in-silico. Focus reference position influenced the calibration error dispersion, while calibration cage pose affected its bias. In the worst-case scenario, the estimation error of the principal point and of the focus distance was lower than 1 mm and 2 mm, respectively. The consequent estimation of joint angles was scarcely influenced by calibration errors. A linear trend was highlighted for joint translations, with a sensitivity proportional to the distance between the model and the image plane, resulting in a submillimeter error for realistic calibration errors. The biased component of the error is compensated when computing relative joint kinematics between two segments.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Topics: Bone , Calibration , Errors
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Banks, S. A., and Hodge, W. A., 1996, “Accurate Measurement of Three-Dimensional Knee Replacement Kinematics Using Single-Plane Fluoroscopy,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 43(6), pp. 638–649. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Markelj, P., Tomaževič, D., Likar, B., and Pernuš, F., 2012, “A Review of 3D/2D Registration Methods for Image-Guided Interventions,” Med. Image Anal., 16(3), pp. 642–661. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Saevarsson, S. K., Romeo, C. I., and Anglin, C., 2013, “Are Static and Dynamic Kinematics Comparable After Total Knee Arthroplasty?,” J. Biomech., 46(6), pp. 1169–1175. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Miranda, D. L., Rainbow, M. J., Crisco, J. J., and Fleming, B. C., 2013, “Kinematic Differences Between Optical Motion Capture and Biplanar Videoradiography During a Jump–Cut Maneuver,” J. Biomech., 46(3), pp. 567–573. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Stagni, R., Fantozzi, S., and Cappello, A., 2009, “Double Calibration vs. Global Optimisation: Performance and Effectiveness for Clinical Application,” Gait Posture, 29(1), pp. 119–122. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gronenschild, E., 1997, “The Accuracy and Reproducibility of a Global Method to Correct for Geometric Image Distortion in the X-Ray Imaging Chain,” Med. Phys., 24(12), pp. 1875–1888. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nolte, L. P., Slomczykowski, M. A., Berlemann, U., Strauss, M. J., HofstetterR., SchlenzkaD., Laine, T., and Lund, T., 2000, “A New Approach to Computer-Aided Spine Surgery: Fluoroscopy-Based Surgical Navigation,” Eur. Spine J., 9(Suppl 1), pp. S78–S88. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hofstetter, R., Slomczykowski, M., Sati, M., and Nolte, L.-P., 1999, “Fluoroscopy as an Imaging Means for Computer-Assisted Surgical Navigation,” Comput. Aided Surg., 4(2), pp. 65–76. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Livyatan, H., Yaniv, Z., and Joskowicz, L., 2002, “Robust Automatic C-Arm Calibration for Fluoroscopy-Based Navigation: A Practical Approach,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention—MICCAI 2002, T.Dohi, and R.Kikinis, eds., Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 60–68.
Garling, E. H., Kaptein, B. L., Geleijns, K., Nelissen, R. G. H. H., and Valstar, E. R., 2005, “Marker Configuration Model-Based Roentgen Fluoroscopic Analysis,” J. Biomech., 38(4), pp. 893–901. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Metz, C. E., and Fencil, L. E., 1989, “Determination of Three-Dimensional Structure in Biplane Radiography Without Prior Knowledge of the Relationship Between the Two Views: Theory,” Med. Phys., 16(1), pp. 45–51. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wei, G.-Q., and Ma, S. D., 1994, “Implicit and Explicit Camera Calibration: Theory and Experiments,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 16(5), pp. 469–480. [CrossRef]
Tersi, L., Fantozzi, S., and Stagni, R., “Characterization of the Performance of Memetic Algorithms for the Automation of Bone Tracking With Fluoroscopy,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. (in press). [CrossRef]
Tersi, L., Barré, A., Fantozzi, S., and Stagni, R., 2013, “In Vitro Quantification of the Performance of Model-Based Mono-Planar and Bi-Planar Fluoroscopy for 3D Joint Kinematics Estimation,” Med. Biol. Eng. Comput., 51(3), pp. 257–265. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tersi, L., Fantozzi, S., and Stagni, R., 2009, “3D Elbow Kinematics With Monoplanar Fluoroscopy: In Silico Evaluation,” EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process., 2010(1), p. 142989.
Mahfouz, M. R., Hoff, W. A., Komistek, R. D., and Dennis, D. A., 2003, “A Robust Method for Registration of Three-Dimensional Knee Implant Models to Two-Dimensional Fluoroscopy Images,” Med. Imaging IEEE Trans., 22(12), pp. 1561–1574. [CrossRef]
Kaptein, B. L., Shelburne, K. B., Torry, M. R., and Erik Giphart, J., 2011, “A Comparison of Calibration Methods for Stereo Fluoroscopic Imaging Systems,” J. Biomech., 44(13), pp. 2511–2515. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cai, R., Yuan, X., Rorabeck, C., Bourne, R. B., and Holdsworth, D. W., 2008, “Development of an RSA Calibration System With Improved Accuracy and Precision,” J. Biomech., 41(4), pp. 907–911. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zihlmann, M. S., Gerber, H., Stacoff, A., Burckhardt, K., Székely, G., and Stüssi, E., 2006, “Three-Dimensional Kinematics and Kinetics of Total Knee Arthroplasty During Level Walking Using Single Plane Video-Fluoroscopy and Force Plates: A Pilot Study,” Gait Posture, 24(4), pp. 475–481. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Barre, A., Thiran, J.-P., Jolles, B. M., Theumann, N., and Aminian, K., 2013, “Soft Tissue Artifact Assessment During Treadmill Walking in Subjects With Total Knee Arthroplasty,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 60(11), pp. 3131–3140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tarroni, G., Tersi, L., Corsi, C., and Stagni, R., 2012, “Prosthetic Component Segmentation With Blur Compensation: A Fast Method for 3D Fluoroscopy,” Med. Biol. Eng. Comput., 50(6), pp. 631–640. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Valstar, E. R., Nelissen, R. G. H. H., Reiber, J. H. C., and Rozing, P. M., 2002, “The Use of Roentgen Stereophotogrammetry to Study Micromotion of Orthopaedic Implants,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 56(5–6), pp. 376–389. [CrossRef]
Tersi, L., Fantozzi, S., Stagni, R., and Cappello, A., 2012, “Fluoroscopic Analysis for the Estimation of in vivo Elbow Kinematics: Influence of 3D Model,” J. Mech. Med. Biol., 12(3), p. 1250046. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

reverse engineered cage model (a) with fiducial markers on the green plane, and control markers on blue plane. Panel (b) shows the cage markers projections, perturbed with Poisson noise. Black circles are the markers centers detected by Hough transform.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Fluoroscope virtual outline (a), 3D bone model (humerus) is placed in reference pose (Pref), the relevant projected contour is generated from the focus Fref. Panel (b) represents the scene viewed from Fref (perfect correspondence between contour and bone model). The same scene is viewed from Fper (panel (c)), the matching is lost and automatic alignments will introduce pose estimation error.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Box & whiskers plot of the calibration error grouped by focus reference position and cage pose. The whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Box & whiskers plot of the translation estimation errors with respect to focus position perturbations (radius, worst-case scenario) for the reference poses with Tz = 200 mm. The whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers. A linear correlation was highlighted along concordant directions (sensitivity in Table 3).



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In