Despite improvements in surgical techniques and implant designs, impingement and dislocation constitute a crucial cause of failure of THR; this is due to a limited postoperative range of motion (ROM) during activities of daily living [7; 8]. Besides aseptic loosening, dislocation is one of the major complications of hip replacement [1; 9; 10; 11]. In the USA, dislocation is considered as the most common indication for revision surgery [8]. A high ROM is essential, especially for patients with extreme movements in different populations worldwide as well as for young and more active patients [9; 10]. Besides bone and prosthetic impingement, the ROM of THRs may also be limited due to the surrounding soft-tissue structures [11]. The impingement process and, thus, the resulting ROM are dependent on patient-specific anatomy, the implant design, and intraoperative implant position, as well as the condition of the surrounding patient-specific soft-tissue structures [12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20]. Additionally, impingement can cause hip joint instability, induce wear or damage to the articulating implant surfaces, reduce the implant fixation, and cause total hip dislocation [16; 21; 22]. Moreover, impingement of the femoral neck on the acetabular cup can result in increased wear and liner damage due to higher contact pressure at the contact point, presenting a higher risk for subluxation or dislocation [21]. Hereby, impingement is responsible for the lever arm to lever out the prosthetic head from the acetabular cup. Currently, the occurrence of impingement is manually assessed by an orthopedic surgeon, by intraoperatively imposing specific motion patterns while the impingement is detected [23]. To analyze the maximum ROM of different implant designs, several experimental [24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29] and computational studies [13; 18; 20; 21; 23; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38], using computer-aided design (CAD), finite element analyses, or multibody simulations, have been conducted. Previous studies described the effect of the orientation of the acetabular cup, prosthetic head size on the impingement, and risk of dislocation [21; 39; 40]. A recent computational study conducted by [PERSON] et al. [41] optimized the recommendations to reach the largest impingement-free ROM, by finding optimal target zones for implant positioning; this was achieved by using 3D kinematic hip motion analyses with respect to the contribution of various intraoperative positioning and implant design parameters. In a retrospective study, the sagittal orientation of the pelvis after THR was investigated, which is an important factor for functional cup orientation [42]. However, most of the studies did not consider real patient-specific data or were mostly based on computed tomography (CT) scans, which were hazardous for the patient, and, therefore, not the first choice in a preoperative planning scenario. The ROM is linked to the postoperative outcome and has attracted attention from the research community by using experimental and numerical methods [21; 30; 38; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45; 46; 47; 48; 49; 50; 51; 52]. Despite these studies, there is, to our knowledge, no approach that can be used to assess ROM in preoperative planning without subjecting the patient to additional radiation by CT scanning. In this regard, due to the high anatomical variability of hip joint geometry, patient-specific geometries are needed to perform more realistic computational preoperative analysis [23; 32]. We aimed to prove the feasibility of investigating ROM, based on patient data, using the proposed methodology which enables the computational prediction of postoperative ROM, depending on the component selection and alignment. Therefore, we introduce a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based computational framework to support the preoperative assessment of THRs. In this context, MRI allows computational reconstruction of the bone structures, enabling the virtual implantation of different endoprosthetic designs and various implant positioning.