A new method to compare planned and achieved position of an orthopaedic implant

Florin Popescu, Marco Viceconti, Erika Grazi, Angelo Cappello

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The present study describes an automatic method to evaluate the efficacy of a computer aided orthopaedic surgery system by comparing the position of the joint implant, as derived from post-operative computed tomography (CT) scans, to that planned by the surgeon before the operation. The method relies on two spatial registrations, one to align the post-operative femur with the pre-operative femur, the second to compute the planned versus achieved (PVA) accuracy as the roto-translation that registers the pre-operative implant position with the post-operative position. Two surface registration algorithms (a generic average distance minimisation and the specialised iterative closest point (ICP) method) were comparatively evaluated first on a set of test cases to measure the absolute accuracy and robustness with respect to peculiar situations such as a distant starting point. The average distance method failed the registration of one test case and showed peak errors of 0.97° on the rotations and 3.09 mm on the translations. The ICP method was found much more efficient and was able to register all test cases. The peak error was 0.44° on the rotations and 0.67 mm on the translations. The ICP method was then used to compute the PVA accuracy on six clinical cases treated with a CT-based planning system in combination with conventional surgical procedures. The method successfully processed all cases demonstrating the efficacy of the proposed procedure in the specific application.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)117-127
Number of pages11
JournalComputer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
Volume71
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2003

Fingerprint

Orthopedics
Tomography
Surgery
Planning
Femur
Computer-Assisted Surgery
Joints

Keywords

  • Computer aided surgery
  • Hip prosthesis
  • Planned versus achieved accuracy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Software

Cite this

A new method to compare planned and achieved position of an orthopaedic implant. / Popescu, Florin; Viceconti, Marco; Grazi, Erika; Cappello, Angelo.

In: Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, Vol. 71, No. 2, 06.2003, p. 117-127.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Popescu, Florin ; Viceconti, Marco ; Grazi, Erika ; Cappello, Angelo. / A new method to compare planned and achieved position of an orthopaedic implant. In: Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 2003 ; Vol. 71, No. 2. pp. 117-127.
@article{0f2be09b7999418bbd24e48666cf8394,
title = "A new method to compare planned and achieved position of an orthopaedic implant",
abstract = "The present study describes an automatic method to evaluate the efficacy of a computer aided orthopaedic surgery system by comparing the position of the joint implant, as derived from post-operative computed tomography (CT) scans, to that planned by the surgeon before the operation. The method relies on two spatial registrations, one to align the post-operative femur with the pre-operative femur, the second to compute the planned versus achieved (PVA) accuracy as the roto-translation that registers the pre-operative implant position with the post-operative position. Two surface registration algorithms (a generic average distance minimisation and the specialised iterative closest point (ICP) method) were comparatively evaluated first on a set of test cases to measure the absolute accuracy and robustness with respect to peculiar situations such as a distant starting point. The average distance method failed the registration of one test case and showed peak errors of 0.97° on the rotations and 3.09 mm on the translations. The ICP method was found much more efficient and was able to register all test cases. The peak error was 0.44° on the rotations and 0.67 mm on the translations. The ICP method was then used to compute the PVA accuracy on six clinical cases treated with a CT-based planning system in combination with conventional surgical procedures. The method successfully processed all cases demonstrating the efficacy of the proposed procedure in the specific application.",
keywords = "Computer aided surgery, Hip prosthesis, Planned versus achieved accuracy",
author = "Florin Popescu and Marco Viceconti and Erika Grazi and Angelo Cappello",
year = "2003",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/S0169-2607(02)00091-3",
language = "English",
volume = "71",
pages = "117--127",
journal = "Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine",
issn = "0169-2607",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A new method to compare planned and achieved position of an orthopaedic implant

AU - Popescu, Florin

AU - Viceconti, Marco

AU - Grazi, Erika

AU - Cappello, Angelo

PY - 2003/6

Y1 - 2003/6

N2 - The present study describes an automatic method to evaluate the efficacy of a computer aided orthopaedic surgery system by comparing the position of the joint implant, as derived from post-operative computed tomography (CT) scans, to that planned by the surgeon before the operation. The method relies on two spatial registrations, one to align the post-operative femur with the pre-operative femur, the second to compute the planned versus achieved (PVA) accuracy as the roto-translation that registers the pre-operative implant position with the post-operative position. Two surface registration algorithms (a generic average distance minimisation and the specialised iterative closest point (ICP) method) were comparatively evaluated first on a set of test cases to measure the absolute accuracy and robustness with respect to peculiar situations such as a distant starting point. The average distance method failed the registration of one test case and showed peak errors of 0.97° on the rotations and 3.09 mm on the translations. The ICP method was found much more efficient and was able to register all test cases. The peak error was 0.44° on the rotations and 0.67 mm on the translations. The ICP method was then used to compute the PVA accuracy on six clinical cases treated with a CT-based planning system in combination with conventional surgical procedures. The method successfully processed all cases demonstrating the efficacy of the proposed procedure in the specific application.

AB - The present study describes an automatic method to evaluate the efficacy of a computer aided orthopaedic surgery system by comparing the position of the joint implant, as derived from post-operative computed tomography (CT) scans, to that planned by the surgeon before the operation. The method relies on two spatial registrations, one to align the post-operative femur with the pre-operative femur, the second to compute the planned versus achieved (PVA) accuracy as the roto-translation that registers the pre-operative implant position with the post-operative position. Two surface registration algorithms (a generic average distance minimisation and the specialised iterative closest point (ICP) method) were comparatively evaluated first on a set of test cases to measure the absolute accuracy and robustness with respect to peculiar situations such as a distant starting point. The average distance method failed the registration of one test case and showed peak errors of 0.97° on the rotations and 3.09 mm on the translations. The ICP method was found much more efficient and was able to register all test cases. The peak error was 0.44° on the rotations and 0.67 mm on the translations. The ICP method was then used to compute the PVA accuracy on six clinical cases treated with a CT-based planning system in combination with conventional surgical procedures. The method successfully processed all cases demonstrating the efficacy of the proposed procedure in the specific application.

KW - Computer aided surgery

KW - Hip prosthesis

KW - Planned versus achieved accuracy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0038701794&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0038701794&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0169-2607(02)00091-3

DO - 10.1016/S0169-2607(02)00091-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 12758133

AN - SCOPUS:0038701794

VL - 71

SP - 117

EP - 127

JO - Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

JF - Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

SN - 0169-2607

IS - 2

ER -