A cost-effective surgical navigation solution for periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) surgery
To evaluate a low-cost, inertial sensor-based surgical navigation solution for periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) surgery without the line-of-sight impediment.
Two commercial inertial measurement units (IMU, Xsens Technologies, The Netherlands), are attached to a patient’s pelvis and to the acetabular fragment, respectively. Registration of the patient with a pre-operatively acquired computer model is done by recording the orientation of the patient’s anterior pelvic plane (APP) using one IMU. A custom-designed device is used to record the orientation of the APP in the reference coordinate system of the IMU. After registration, the two sensors are mounted to the patient’s pelvis and acetabular fragment, respectively. Once the initial position is recorded, the orientation is measured and displayed on a computer screen. A patient-specific computer model generated from a pre-operatively acquired computed tomography scan is used to visualize the updated orientation of the acetabular fragment.
Experiments with plastic bones (eight hip joints) performed in an operating room comparing a previously developed optical navigation system with our inertial-based navigation system showed no statistically significant difference on the measurement of acetabular component reorientation. In all eight hip joints the mean absolute difference was below four degrees.
Using two commercially available inertial measurement units we show that it is possible to accurately measure the orientation (inclination and anteversion) of the acetabular fragment during PAO surgery and therefore to successfully eliminate the line-of-sight impediment that optical navigation systems have.
KeywordsComputer-assisted surgery Inertial measurement unit Navigation system PAO surgery
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Supplementary material 1 (mp4 95141 KB)
- 7.Liu L, Ecker T, Schumann S, Siebenrock KA, Nolte LP, Zheng G (2014) Computer assisted planning and navigation of periacetabular osteotomy with range of motion optimization. MICCAI 2:643–650Google Scholar
- 9.Nogler M, Kessler O, Prassl A (2004) Reduced variability of acetabular cup positioning with use of an imageless navigation system. Clin Orthop 426(1):159–163Google Scholar
- 11.Haid M, Kamil M, Chobtrong T, Guenes E (2013) Machine-vision-based and inertial-sensor-supported navigation system for the minimal invasive surgery. AMA conferences 2013—SENSOR 2013. doi: 10.5162/sensor2013/P5.3
- 14.Behrens A, Grimm J, Gross S, Aach T (2011) Inertial navigation system for bladder endoscopy. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBC, p 2011Google Scholar
- 18.Kalman RE (1960) A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. ASME J Basic Eng 82(1):35–45. doi: 10.1115/1.3662552
- 19.Beller S, Eulenstein S, Lange T, Hunerbein M, Schlag PM (2009) Upgrade of an optical navigation system with a permanent electromagnetic position control: a first step towards “navigated control” for liver surgery. J Hepato Biliary Pancreat Surg 16(2):165–170. doi: 10.1007/s00534-008-0040-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Claasen G, Martin P, Picard F (2011) High-bandwidth low-latency tracking using optical and inertial sensors. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on automation, robotics and applications, pp 366–371Google Scholar
- 24.Roetenberg D, Luinge H, Veltlink P (2003) Inertial and magnetic sensing of human movement near ferromagnetic materials. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE/ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented realityGoogle Scholar