Robust and Accurate Reconstruction of Patient-Specific 3D Surface Models from Sparse Point Sets: A Sequential Three-Stage Trimmed Optimization Approach

  • Guoyan Zheng
  • Xiao Dong
  • Lutz-Peter Nolte
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4091)


Constructing an accurate patient-specific three-dimensional (3D) bone model from sparse point sets is a challenging task. A priori information is often required to handle this otherwise ill-posed problem. Previously we have proposed an optimal approach for anatomical shape reconstruction from sparse information [1], which uses a dense surface point distribution model (DS-PDM) as the a priori information and formulates the surface reconstruction problem as a three-stage optimal estimation process including (1) affine registration; (2) statistical extrapolation; and (3) kernel-based deformation. In this paper, we propose an important enhancement that enables to realize stable reconstructions and robustly reject outliers. Handling of outliers is a very crucial requirement especially in the surgical scenario. This is achieved by consistently employing the Least Trimmed Squares (LTS) approach with a roughly estimated outlier rate in all three stages of the reconstruction process. If an optimal value of the outlier rate is preferred, we propose a hypothesis testing procedure to automatically determine it. Results of testing the new approach on dry cadaveric femurs with different outlier rates are shown.


Surface reconstruction dense surface point distribution model least trimmed squares estimation hypothesis test 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Zheng, G., Rajamani, K.T., Nolte, L.-P.: Use of a Dense Surface Point Distribution Model in a Three-Stage Anatomical Shape Reconstruction from Sparse Information for Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery: A Preliminary Study. In: Narayanan, P.J., Nayar, S.K., Shum, H.-Y. (eds.) ACCV 2006. LNCS, vol. 3852, pp. 52–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lavalle, S., Merloz, P., et al.: Echomorphing introducing an intra-operative imaging modality to reconstruct 3D bone surfaces for minimally invasive surgery. In: CAOS 2004, pp. 38–39 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hofstetter, R., Slomczykowski, M., et al.: Fluoroscopy as an imaging means for computer-assisted surgical navigation. Comp. Aid. Surg. 4, 65–76 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fleute, M., Lavallee, S.: Building a complete surface model from sparse data using statistical shape models: application to computer assisted knee surgery system. In: Wells, W.M., Colchester, A.C.F., Delp, S.L. (eds.) MICCAI 1998. LNCS, vol. 1496, pp. 879–887. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan, C.S., Edwards, P.J., Hawkes, D.J.: Integration of ultrasound-based registration with statistical shape models for computer-assisted orthopedic surgery. In: SPIE, Medical Imaging, 414–424 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blanz, V., Vetter, T.: Reconstructing the complete 3D shape of faces from partial information, pp. 295–302. it+ti Oldenburg Verlag, München (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rajamani, T.K., et al.: A novel and stable approach to anatomical structure morphing for enhanced intraoperative 3D visualization. In: SPIE Medical Imaging, pp. 718–725 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rousseeuw, P., van Zomern, B.: Unmasking multivariate outliers and leverage points. Journal of the American Statistical Association 86, 633–651 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brechbuehler, C., Gerig, G., Kuebler, O.: Parameterization of Closed Surfaces for 3D Shape Description. Comput. Vision and Image Under 61, 154–170 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davies, R.H., Twining, C.H., et al.: 3D Statistical Shape Models Using Direct Optimisation of Description Length. In: Heyden, A., Sparr, G., Nielsen, M., Johansen, P. (eds.) ECCV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2352, pp. 3–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Loop, C.T.: Smooth subdivision surfaces based on triangles. M.S. Thesis, Department of Mathematics, University of Utah (August 1987)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chetverikov, D., Svirko, D., Stepanov, D., Krsek, O.: The trimmed iterative closest point algorithm. In: ICPR 2002, vol. 3, pp. 545–548 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bookstein, F.: Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. IEEE T. Pattern Anal. 11, 567–585 (1989)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scott, D.W.: Multivariate Density Estimation. Theory, Practice, and Visualization. Wiley, Chichester (1992)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aspert, N., Santa-Cruz, D., Ebrahimi, T.: MESH: Measuring errors between surfaces using the Hausdorff Distance. In: ICME 2002, pp. 705–708 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guoyan Zheng
    • 1
  • Xiao Dong
    • 1
  • Lutz-Peter Nolte
    • 1
  1. 1.MEM Research CenterUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations