A Baseline Approach for AutoImplant: the MICCAI 2020 Cranial Implant Design Challenge
Authors:
Jianning Li,
Antonio Pepe,
Christina Gsaxner,
Gord von Campe,
Jan Egger
Abstract:
In this study, we present a baseline approach for AutoImplant (https://autoimplant.grand-challenge.org/) - the cranial implant design challenge, which, as suggested by the organizers, can be formulated as a volumetric shape learning task. In this task, the defective skull, the complete skull and the cranial implant are represented as binary voxel grids. To accomplish this task, the implant can be…
▽ More
In this study, we present a baseline approach for AutoImplant (https://autoimplant.grand-challenge.org/) - the cranial implant design challenge, which, as suggested by the organizers, can be formulated as a volumetric shape learning task. In this task, the defective skull, the complete skull and the cranial implant are represented as binary voxel grids. To accomplish this task, the implant can be either reconstructed directly from the defective skull or obtained by taking the difference between a defective skull and a complete skull. In the latter case, a complete skull has to be reconstructed given a defective skull, which defines a volumetric shape completion problem. Our baseline approach for this task is based on the former formulation, i.e., a deep neural network is trained to predict the implants directly from the defective skulls. The approach generates high-quality implants in two steps: First, an encoder-decoder network learns a coarse representation of the implant from down-sampled, defective skulls; The coarse implant is only used to generate the bounding box of the defected region in the original high-resolution skull. Second, another encoder-decoder network is trained to generate a fine implant from the bounded area. On the test set, the proposed approach achieves an average dice similarity score (DSC) of 0.8555 and Hausdorff distance (HD) of 5.1825 mm. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/Jianningli/autoimplant.
△ Less
Submitted 24 June, 2020; v1 submitted 22 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
Interactive reconstructions of cranial 3D implants under MeVisLab as an alternative to commercial planning software
Authors:
Jan Egger,
Markus Gall,
Alois Tax,
Muammer Ücal,
Ulrike Zefferer,
Xing Li,
Gord von Campe,
Ute Schäfer,
Dieter Schmalstieg,
Xiaojun Chen
Abstract:
In this publication, the interactive planning and reconstruction of cranial 3D Implants under the medical prototy** platform MeVisLab as alternative to commercial planning software is introduced. In doing so, a MeVisLab prototype consisting of a customized data-flow network and an own C++ module was set up. As a result, the Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software prototype guides a user through the…
▽ More
In this publication, the interactive planning and reconstruction of cranial 3D Implants under the medical prototy** platform MeVisLab as alternative to commercial planning software is introduced. In doing so, a MeVisLab prototype consisting of a customized data-flow network and an own C++ module was set up. As a result, the Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software prototype guides a user through the whole workflow to generate an implant. Therefore, the workflow begins with loading and mirroring the patients head for an initial curvature of the implant. Then, the user can perform an additional Laplacian smoothing, followed by a Delaunay triangulation. The result is an aesthetic looking and well-fitting 3D implant, which can be stored in a CAD file format, e.g. STereoLithography (STL), for 3D printing. The 3D printed implant can finally be used for an in-depth pre-surgical evaluation or even as a real implant for the patient. In a nutshell, our research and development shows that a customized MeVisLab software prototype can be used as an alternative to complex commercial planning software, which may also not be available in every clinic. Finally, not to conform ourselves directly to available commercial software and look for other options that might improve the workflow.
△ Less
Submitted 9 March, 2017;
originally announced March 2017.
