Jianning Li,David G Ellis,Oldřich Kodym,Laurèl Rauschenbach,Christoph Rieß,Ulrich Sure,Karsten H Wrede,Carlos M Alvarez,Marek Wodzinski,Mateusz Daniol,Daria Hemmerling,Hamza Mahdi,Allison Clement,Evan Kim,Zachary Fishman,Cari M Whyne,James G Mainprize,Michael R Hardisty,Shashwat Pathak,Chitimireddy Sindhura,Rama Krishna Sai S Gorthi,Degala Venkata Kiran,Subrahmanyam Gorthi,Bokai Yang,Ke Fang,Xingyu Li,Artem Kroviakov,Lei Yu,Yuan Jin,Antonio Pepe,Christina Gsaxner,Adam Herout,Victor Alves,Michal Španěl,Michele R Aizenberg,Jens Kleesiek,Jan Egger,David G. Ellis,Karsten H. Wrede,Carlos M. Alvarez,Cari M. Whyne,James G. Mainprize,Michael R. Hardisty,Rama Krishna Sai S. Gorthi,Michele R. Aizenberg

Abstract:Cranial implants are commonly used for surgical repair of craniectomy-induced skull defects. These implants are usually generated offline and may require days to weeks to be available. An automated implant design process combined with onsite manufacturing facilities can guarantee immediate implant availability and avoid secondary intervention. To address this need, the AutoImplant II challenge was organized in conjunction with MICCAI 2021, catering for the unmet clinical and computational requirements of automatic cranial implant design. The first edition of AutoImplant (AutoImplant I, 2020) demonstrated the general capabilities and effectiveness of data-driven approaches, including deep learning, for a skull shape completion task on synthetic defects. The second AutoImplant challenge (i.e., AutoImplant II, 2021) built upon the first by adding real clinical craniectomy cases as well as additional synthetic imaging data. The AutoImplant II challenge consisted of three tracks. Tracks 1 and 3 used skull images with synthetic defects to evaluate the ability of submitted approaches to generate implants that recreate the original skull shape. Track 3 consisted of the data from the first challenge (i.e., 100 cases for training, and 110 for evaluation), and Track 1 provided 570 training and 100 validation cases aimed at evaluating skull shape completion algorithms at diverse defect patterns. Track 2 also made progress over the first challenge by providing 11 clinically defective skulls and evaluating the submitted implant designs on these clinical cases. The submitted designs were evaluated quantitatively against imaging data from post-craniectomy as well as by an experienced neurosurgeon. Submissions to these challenge tasks made substantial progress in addressing issues such as generalizability, computational efficiency, data augmentation, and implant refinement. This paper serves as a comprehensive summary and comparison of the submissions to the AutoImplant II challenge. Codes and models are available at https://github.com/Jianningli/Autoimplant_II.

Thickness and design features of clinical cranial implants—what should automated methods strive to replicate?

Towards clinical applicability and computational efficiency in automatic cranial implant design: An overview of the AutoImplant 2021 cranial implant design challenge

Cranial Implant Design via Virtual Craniectomy with Shape Priors

Synthetic skull bone defects for automatic patient-specific craniofacial implant design

A Baseline Approach for AutoImplant: the MICCAI 2020 Cranial Implant Design Challenge

AutoImplant 2020-First MICCAI Challenge on Automatic Cranial Implant Design

Automatic Skull Defect Restoration and Cranial Implant Generation for Cranioplasty

Back to the Roots: Reconstructing Large and Complex Cranial Defects using an Image-based Statistical Shape Model

Creating high-resolution 3D cranial implant geometry using deep learning techniques

Deep Learning-based Framework for Automatic Cranial Defect Reconstruction and Implant Modeling

Skull shape reconstruction using cascaded convolutional networks

Three-dimensional deep learning to automatically generate cranial implant geometry

Cranial Implant Design Through Multiaxial Slice Inpainting Using Deep Learning.

A Semi-automatic Cranial Implant Design Tool Based on Rigid ICP Template Alignment and Voxel Space Reconstruction

Improving Deep Learning-based Automatic Cranial Defect Reconstruction by Heavy Data Augmentation: From Image Registration to Latent Diffusion Models

Computer-aided implant design for the restoration of cranial defects

CraNeXt: Automatic Reconstruction of Skull Implants With Skull Categorization Technique

Computer-aided Planning and Reconstruction of Cranial 3D Implants.

Cranial Implant Prediction using Low-Resolution 3D Shape Completion and High-Resolution 2D Refinement

Inverse design of skull osteoinductive implants with multi-level pore structures through machine learning

Neural shape completion for personalized Maxillofacial surgery