CT-based automated planning of acetabular cup for total hip arthroplasty (THA) based on hybrid use of two statistical atlases

  • Yoshiyuki Kagiyama
  • Itaru Otomaru
  • Masaki Takao
  • Nobuhiko Sugano
  • Masahiko Nakamoto
  • Futoshi Yokota
  • Noriyuki Tomiyama
  • Yukio Tada
  • Yoshinobu SatoEmail author
Original Article



This study describes the use of CT images in atlas-based automated planning methods for acetabular cup implants in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The objective of this study is to develop an automated cup planning method considering the statistical distribution of the residual thickness.


From a number of past THA planning datasets, we construct two statistical atlases that represent the surgeon’s expertise. The first atlas is a pelvis-cup merged statistical shape model (PC-SSM), which encodes global spatial relationships between the patient anatomy and implant. The other is a statistical residual thickness map (SRTM) of the implant surface, which encodes local spatial constraints of the anatomy and implant. In addition to PC-SSM and SRTM, we utilized the minimum thickness as a threshold constraint to prevent penetration.


The proposed method was applied to the pelvis shapes segmented from CT images of 37 datasets of osteoarthritis patients. Automated planning results with manual segmentation were compared to the plans prepared by an experienced surgeon. There was no significant difference in the average cup size error between the two methods (1.1 and 1.2 mm, respectively). The average positional error obtained by the proposed method, which integrates the two atlases, was significantly smaller (3.2 mm) than the previous method, which uses single atlas (3.9 mm). In the proposed method with automated segmentation, the size error of the proposed method for automated segmentation was comparable (1.1 mm) to that for manual segmentation (1.1 mm). The average positional error was significantly worse (4.2 mm) than that using manual segmentation (3.2 mm). If we only consider mildly diseased cases, however, there was no significance between them (3.2 mm in automated and 2.6 mm in manual segmentation).


We infer that integrating PC-SSM and SRTM is a useful approach for modeling experienced surgeon’s preference during cup planning.


Computer-assisted surgery Surgeon’s expertise Multi-object statistical shape model Residual bone thickness Implant surgery Surgical planning 



This work was partly supported by MEXT/JSPS KAKENHI No. 26108004 and No. 25242051 and No. 15K21035 and also supported by AMED-ETH Strategic Japanese-Swiss Cooperative Research Program #J130701469.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Osaka University Hospital where the patient’s medical data used in this work were obtained.


  1. 1.
    DiGioia A, Jaramaz B, Blackwell M, Simon D, Morgan F, Moody J, Nikou C, Colgan B, Aston C, Labarca R, Kischell E, Kanade T (1998) Image guided navigation system to measure intraoperatively acetabular implant alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355:8–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DiGioia A, Jaramaz B, Nikou C, Labarca R, Moody J, Colgan B (2000) Surgical navigation for total hip replacement with the use of hipnav. Oper Tech Orthop 10(1):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bargar W, Bauer A, Borner M (1998) Primary and revision total hip replacement using the Robodoc system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 354:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cleary K, Nguyen C (2001) State of the art in surgical robotics: clinical applications and technology challenges. Comput Aided Surg 6(6):312–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sugano N (2003) Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery. J Orthop Sci 8(3):442–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gomes P (2011) Surgical robotics: reviewing the past, analysing the present, imagining the future. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 27(2):261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor RH, Mittelstadt B, Paul H, Hanson W, Kazanzides P, Zuhars J, Williamson B, Musits B, Glassman E, Bargar W (1994) An image-directed robotic system for precise orthopaedic surgery. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 10(3):261–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nakamura N, Sugano N, Nishii T, Kakimoto A, Miki H (2010) A comparison between robotic-assisted and manual implantation of cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(4):1072–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Yoshikawa H, Sato Y, Tamura S (2007) Mid-term results of cementless total hip replacement using a ceramic-on-ceramic bearing with and without computer navigation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(4):455–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iwana D, Nakamura N, Miki H, Kitada M, Hananouchi T, Sugano N (2013) Accuracy of angle and position of the cup using computed tomography-based navigation systems in total hip arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg 18(5–6):187–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kitada M, Nakamura N, Iwana D, Kakimoto A, Nishii T, Sugano N (2011) Evaluation of the accuracy of computed tomography-based navigation for femoral stem orientation and leg length discrepancy. J Arthroplasty 26(5):674–679CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nikou C, Jaramaz B, DiGioia A, Blackwell M, Romesberg M, Green M (1999) POP: preoperative planning and simulation software for total hip replacement surgery. Proc MICCAI 1679:868–875Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lattanzi R, Viceconti M, Zannoni C, Quadrani P, Toni A (2002) Hip-Op: an innovative software to plan total hip replacement surgery. Med Inform Internet Med 27(2):71–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Viceconti M, Lattanzi R, Antonietti B, Paderni S, Olmi R, Sudanese A, Toni A (2003) CT-based surgical planning software improves the accuracy of total hip replacement preoperative planning. Med Eng Phys 25(5):371–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lattanzi R, Grazi E, Testi D, Viceconti M, Cappello A, Tony A (2003) Accuracy and repeatability of cementless total hip replacement surgery in patients with deformed anatomies. Med Inform Internet Med 28(1):59–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kagiyama Y, Nakamoto M, Takao M, Sato Y, Sugano N, Yoshikawa H, Tamura S (2004) Automated preoperative 3D planning of acetabular cup positioning and size selection in total hip arthroplasty using CT data. Proc CAOS 312–313Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kagiyama Y, Sugano N, Takao M, Nakamoto M, Sato Y, Yoshikawa H, Akazawa K, Tada Y (2008) Automated preoperative planning procedure for acetabular cup based on 3D pelvic bone structure in total hip replacement. Jpn Soc Med Biol Eng 46(4):437–450 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Otomaru I, Kobayashi K, Okada T, Nakamoto M, Takao M, Sugano N, Tada Y, Sato Y (2009) CT-based automated preoperative planning of acetabular cup size and position using pelvis-cup integrated statistical shape model. Proc CAOS 185–188Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Otomaru I, Nakamoto M, Okada T, Kagiyama Y, Takao M, Sugano N, Tada Y, Tomiyama N, Sato Y (2012) Automated 3D acetabular cup planning in total hip arthroplasty based on expertise modeling using statistical shape model. J Jpn Soc Comput Aided Surg 14(1):27–37 (in Japanese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heimann T, Meinzer H-P (2009) Statistical shape models for 3D medical image segmentation: a review. Med Image Anal 13(4):543–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Otomaru I, Nakamoto M, Kagiyama Y, Takao M, Sugano N, Tomiyama N, Tada Y, Sato Y (2012) Automated preoperative planning of femoral stem in total hip arthroplasty: atlas-based approach and comparative study. Med Image Anal 16(2):415–426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Otomaru I, Kobayashi K, Okada T, Nakamoto M, Kagiyama Y, Takao M, Sugano N, Tada Y, Sato Y (2009) Expertise modeling for automated planning of acetabular cup in total hip arthroplasty using combined bone and implant statistical atlases. Proc MICCAI 5761:532–539Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yokota F, Okada T, Takao M, Sugano N, Tada Y, Tomiyama N, Sato Y (2013) Automated CT segmentation of diseased hip using hierarchical and conditional statistical shape models. Proc MICCAI 8150:190–197Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Widmer KH, Zurfluh B (2004) Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion. J Orthp Res 22(4):815–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yokota F, Okada T, Takao M, Sugano N, Tada Y, Tomiyama N, Sato Y (2012) Automated localization of pelvic anatomical coordinate system from 3D CT Data of the hip using statistical atlas. Med Imag Technol 30(1):43–52 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Crowe J, Mani J, Ranawat C (1979) Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61(1):15–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heimann T, van Ginneken B, Styner MA, Arzhaeva Y, Aurich V, Bauer C, Beck A, Becker C, Beichel R, Bekes G, Bello F, Binnig G, Bischof H, Bornik A, Cashman PMM, Chi Y, Cordova A, Dawant BM, Fidrich M, Furst JD, Furukawa D, Grenacher L, Hornegger J, Kainmüller D, Kitney RI, Kobatake H, Lamecker H, Lange T, Lee J, Lennon B, Li R, Li S, Meinzer HP, Nemeth G, Raicu DS, Rau AM, van Rikxoort EM, Rousson M, Rusko L, Saddi KA, Schmidt G, Seghers D, Shimizu A, Slagmolen P, Sorantin E, Soza G, Susomboon R, Waite JM, Wimmer A, Wolf I (2009) Comparison and evaluation of methods for liver segmentation from CT datasets. IEEE Med Imaging 28:1251–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kagiyama Y, Takao M, Sugano N, Tada Y, Tomiyama N, Sato Y (2013) Optimization of surgical planning of total hip arthroplasty based on computational anatomy. Proc IEEE EMBC 2980–2983Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lamecker H, Wenckebach TH, Hege HC (2006) Atlas-based 3D-shape reconstruction from X-ray images. Proc ICPR 371–374Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Balestra S, Schumann S, Heverhagen J, Nolte G, Zheng G (2014) Articulated statistical shape model-based 2D–3D reconstruction of a hip joint. Proc IPCAI 8498:128–137Google Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoshiyuki Kagiyama
    • 1
  • Itaru Otomaru
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Masaki Takao
    • 5
  • Nobuhiko Sugano
    • 6
  • Masahiko Nakamoto
    • 3
    • 7
  • Futoshi Yokota
    • 9
  • Noriyuki Tomiyama
    • 3
  • Yukio Tada
    • 8
  • Yoshinobu Sato
    • 9
    Email author
  1. 1.Graduate Faculty of Interdisciplinary ResearchUniversity of YamanashiKofuJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of EngineeringKobe UniversityKobeJapan
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Graduate School of MedicineOsaka UniversitySuitaJapan
  4. 4.Canon Inc.OtaJapan
  5. 5.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of MedicineOsaka UniversitySuitaJapan
  6. 6.Department of Orthopaedic Medical Engineering, Graduate School of MedicineOsaka UniversitySuitaJapan
  7. 7.EBM Inc.OtaJapan
  8. 8.Graduate School of System InformaticsKobe UniversityKobeJapan
  9. 9.Graduate School of Information ScienceNara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST)IkomaJapan

Personalised recommendations