Localization of Pelvic Anatomical Coordinate System Using US/Atlas Registration for Total Hip Replacement

  • Pezhman Foroughi
  • Danny Song
  • Gouthami Chintalapani
  • Russell H. Taylor
  • Gabor Fichtinger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5242)

Abstract

In Total Hip Replacement (THR) procedures, misalignment of the acetabular component can lead to dislocation and impingement. For the successful alignment of acetabular component, precise estimation of pelvic anatomical coordinate system is necessary. Conventional navigation systems use CT scan or fluoroscopy, or involve implanted bone fiducials or invasive probing of bony landmarks to locate the anatomical coordinate. In this paper, an ultrasound-based approach is proposed that exploits prior knowledge about the anatomy of the pelvis in the form of a 3D surface atlas. Tracked ultrasound images are utilized to extract sample points from the surface of the pelvis. A generic coordinate system in the specific patient is localized by registering these points to a statistical atlas of the pelvis in which a canonical anatomical coordinate system had been defined. This technique has been evaluated using simulation, dry bone, and cadaver experiments and was able to localize the anatomical coordinate system with the accuracy of about 1 degree.

Keywords

Orthopedic surgery Statistical atlas Ultrasound Registration Navigation Total hip replacement 
Download to read the full conference paper text

References

  1. 1.
    Honl, M., et al.: Orientation of the acetabular component: A comparison of five navigation systems with conventional surgical technique. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 88(B(10)), 1401–1405 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mccollum, D.E., Gray, W.J.: Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty causes and prevention. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 261, 159–170 (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keppler, P., et al.: A new experimental measurement and planning tool for sonographic-assisted navigation. Orthopedics 30(10), S144–147 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kiefer, H., Othman, A.: Ultrasound vs pointer palpation based method in THA navigation: a comparative study. Orthopedics 30(10), S153–156 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cootes, T.F., Taylor, C.J.: Active appearance models. World Wide Web Publication - Technical report (March 2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Talib, H., Rajamani, K., Kowal, J., Styner, M., Ballester, M.A.G.: Assessing the feasibility of ultrasound-initialized deformable bone models. In: Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zheng, G., et al.: Accurate and robust reconstruction of a surface model of the proximal femur from sparse-point data and a dense-point distribution model for surgical navigation. IEEE Tran. Biomed. Eng. 54(12), 2109–2122 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chan, C.S.K., Edwards, P.J., Hawkes, D.J.: Integration of ultrasound-based registration with statistical shape models for computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery. In: Proceedings of SPIE, pp. 1605–7422 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan, C.S.K., et al.: Cadaver validation of the use of ultrasound for 3D model instantiation of bony anatomy in image guided orthopaedic surgery. In: Barillot, C., Haynor, D.R., Hellier, P. (eds.) MICCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3217, pp. 397–404. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nikou, C., Jaramaz, B., DiGioia, A.M., Levison, T.J.: Description of anatomic coordinate systems and rationale for use in an image-guided total hip replacement system. In: Delp, S.L., DiGoia, A.M., Jaramaz, B. (eds.) MICCAI 2000. LNCS, vol. 1935, pp. 1188–1194. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foroughi, P., Boctor, E., Schwartz, M.J., Taylor, R.H., Fichtinger, G.: Ultrasound bone segmentation using dynamic programming. In: IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium, pp. 2523–2526 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chintalapani, G., Ellingsen, L.M., Sadowsky, O., Prince, J.L., Taylor, R.H.: Statistical atlases of bone anatomy: Construction, iterative improvement and validation. In: Ayache, N., Ourselin, S., Maeder, A. (eds.) MICCAI 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4791, pp. 499–506. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foroughi, P., Taylor, R.H., Fichtinger, G.: Automatic initialization for 3d bone registration. In: Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging, 69182P (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yao, J., Taylor, R.H.: Assessing accuracy factors in deformable 2D/3D medical image registration using a statistical pelvis model. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1329–1334 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prager, R.W., Rohling, R.N., Gee, A.H., Berman, L.: Rapid calibration for 3-D freehand ultrasound. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 24(6), 855–869 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pezhman Foroughi
    • 1
  • Danny Song
    • 1
  • Gouthami Chintalapani
    • 1
  • Russell H. Taylor
    • 1
  • Gabor Fichtinger
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Queen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations