header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

A COMPARISON OF REGISTRATION TECHNIQUES FOR COMPUTER AND IMAGE-ASSISTED ELBOW SURGERY



Abstract

Purpose: Accurate determination of the flexion-extension axis of the elbow is critical to the successful placement of elbow arthroplasties, articulated external fixators and ligament reconstructions. We expect axis alignment using computer-assisted techniques to improve the outcome of these procedures. For image-based procedures, registration (i.e. the transformation needed to align two sets of points) during surgery is critical for accurate alignment. A surface-based registration technique, employing a hand-held laser scanner, was evaluated against a stand-alone paired-point registration method to determine whether it led to improved alignment of the elbow’s flexion-extension axis.

Methods: Twelve cadaveric distal-humeri were selected for registration. To perform paired-point (TP-PP) registration, key anatomical landmarks (capitellum, trochlear sulcus and distal humeral shaft) were digitized using a tracked-probe (TP) and an electromagnetic tracking device (Flock of Birds, Ascension Tech). Using the geometric centers of these landmarks, TP-PP registration to CT data was performed. Surface registration was achieved using the iterative closest point (ICP) least-squares algorithm and the results were evaluated for two devices; registration employing the tracked-probe (TP-ICP) and registration employing a hand-held laser scanner, HHS-ICP (FastSCAN, Polhemus). For surface registration, to be consistent with the amount of the joint exposed during a typical surgical procedure, only the articular surface was used for alignment.

Results: Registration error (Figure 1) was lowest for the HHS-ICP method with a mean of 0.8±0.3-mm (maximum error, 1.4-mm) in translation, compared with a mean error of 1.5±0.5-mm (maximum error, 2.4-mm) for the TP-ICP method and 1.9±1.0-mm (maximum error, 4.4-mm) for the TP-PP method (p< 0.001). Errors in TP-PP registration were greatest in the coronal plane while TP-ICP registration often resulted in an error along the transverse plane (Figure 2).

Conclusions: Overall, the reliability of surface-based registration combined with the implementation of the hand-held laser scanner demonstrated greater registration accuracy. A reliable surface-based registration technique may lead to a more accurate determination of the elbow’s flexion-extension axis during surgical procedures, leading to improved joint motion and implant longevity. The implications of these results can also be extended to other joints that employ comparable computer-assisted surgical techniques.

Correspondence should be addressed to Cynthia Vezina, Communications Manager, COA, 4150-360 Ste. Catherine St. West, Westmount, QC H3Z 2Y5, Canada