Future Perspectives on Statistical Shape Models in Computer-Aided Orthopedic Surgery: Beyond Statistical Shape Models and on to Big Data

  • Leo Joskowicz


Statistical shape modeling (SSM) of bone surfaces is now the state of practice in industry and is gaining relevance in the clinical setting. In this chapter, we review the main technical, clinical, and scientific uses of SSMs and their associated techniques. We then survey the leading companies that use SMMs and related modeling techniques as part of their core technology to provide a variety of services and discuss three key issues they raise: What is the scope of SSM generation methodologies? How should the resulting SSMs be validated? How can the individual surface models and SSMs be made available to the community? We conclude with considerations of the main challenges that lie ahead for SSMs and the expected effect of “Big Data” on them.


Computer-aided orthopedic surgery Statistical shape models State-of-the-art review Future assessment 


  1. 1.
    Cootes TF, Hill A, Taylor CJ, Haslam J. The use of active shape models for locating structures in medical images. Image Vision Comput. 1994;12(6):355–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cootes TF, Cooper D, Taylor CJ, Graham J. Active shape models - their training and application. Comput Vision Image Understand. 1995;61(1):38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heimann T, Meinzer HP. Statistical shape models for 3D medical image segmentation: a review. Med Image Anal. 2009;13:543–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albrecht T, Lüthi M, Gerig T, Vetter T. Posterior shape models. Med Image Anal. 2013;17:959–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blanc R, Seiler C, Székely G, Nolte LP, Reyes M. Statistical model based shape prediction from a combination of direct observations and various surrogates: application to orthopaedic research. Med Image Anal. 2012;16:1156–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kozic N, Gonzalez Ballester MA, Buchler M, Reimers N, Nolte LP, Linguraru MG, Reyes M. Population-specific evaluation of implant bone fitting using PCA shape space and level sets. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Biomedical Imaging. Washington, DC: IEEE; 2009. p. 883–6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sarkalkan N, Weinans H, Zadpoor AA. Statistical shape and appearance models of bones. Bone. 2014;60:129–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baldwin MA, Langenderfer JE, Rullkoetter JA, Laz PL. Development of subject-specific and statistical shape models of the knee using an efficient segmentation and mesh-morphing approach. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2010;9(7):232–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bryan R, Mohan PS, Hopkins A, Galloway F, Taylor M, Nair PB. Statistical modelling of the whole human femur incorporating geometric and material properties. Med Eng Phys. 2010;32:57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smoger L, Fitzpatrick CK, Clary CW, Cyr AJ, Maletsky LP, Rullkoetter PJ, Laz PJ. Statistical modeling to characterize relationships between knee anatomy and kinematics. J Orthop Res. 2015;33:1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zheng G, Li S. Computational radiology for orthopaedic interventions. Lecture notes in computational vision and biomechanics. New York: Springer; 2016.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sethian JR. Level set methods and fast marching methods evolving interfaces in computational geometry, fluid mechanics, computer vision, and materials science. Cambridge monograph on Applied and computational mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kovler I, Joskowicz L, Kronman A, Weill Y, Salavarrieta J. Haptic computer-assisted patient specific preoperative planning for orthopaedic fracture surgery. Int J Comput Aid Radiol Surg. 2015;10(10):1535–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lubovsky O, Peleg E, Joskowicz L, Liebergall M, Khoury A. Acetabular orientation variability and symmetry based on CT scans of adults. Int J Comput Aid Radiol Surg. 2010;5(5):449–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Takao M, Nishii T, Sakai T, Sugano N. What is the optimal pelvic coordinate system as a reference of cup alignment? Bone Joint J. 2016;98(Supp. 4):47.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Joskowicz L, Hazan E. Computer aided orthopaedic surgery: incremental shift or paradigm change? Med Image Anal. 2016;33:84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Banerjee S, Faizan A, Nevelos J, Kreuzer S, Burgkart R, Harwin SF, Mont MA. Innovations in hip arthroplasty three-dimensional modeling and analytical technology (SOMA). Surgical Technology International. Orthopaed Surg. 2013;24:280–94.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lüthi M, Blanc R, Albrecht T, Gass T, Goksel O, Buchler P, Kistler M, Bousleiman H, Reyes M, Cattin PC, Vetter T. Statismo - a framework for PCA based statistical models. Insight Journal. 2012. Accessed Dec 10, 2016.
  19. 19.
    Lamecker H, Zachow S. Statistical shape modeling of musculoskeletal structures and its applications. 2015. Accessed Dec 10, 2016.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang M, Golland P. Statistical shape analysis: from landmarks to diffeomorphisms. Med Image Anal. 2016;33:155–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kansagra AP, Yu JP, Chatterjee AR, Lenchik L, Chow DS, Prater AB, Yeh J, Doshi AM, Hawkins CM, Heilbrun ME, Smith SE, Oselkin M, Gupta P, Ali S. Big Data and the future of radiology informatics. Acad Radiol. 2016;23(1):30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar


  1. 1000shapes. Accessed Dec 10, 2016.Google Scholar
  2. CAOS International. International Society for Computer Aided Orthopaedic Surgery. Accessed Dec 10, 2016.
  3. Depuy Synthes. Accessed Dec 10, 2016.Google Scholar
  4. Imorphics. Accessed Dec 10, 2016.Google Scholar
  5. Materialize. Accessed Dec 10, 2016.Google Scholar
  6. ShapeWorks. Accessed Dec 10, 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CASMIP Lab – Computer Aided Surgery and Medical Image Processing Laboratory, School of Computer Science and EngineeringThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations