skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Phantom Study Investigating the Accuracy of Manual and Automatic Image Fusion with the GE Logiq E9: Implications for use in Percutaneous Liver Interventions

Abstract

PurposeTo determine the accuracy of automatic and manual co-registration methods for image fusion of three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) with real-time ultrasonography (US) for image-guided liver interventions.Materials and MethodsCT images of a skills phantom with liver lesions were acquired and co-registered to US using GE Logiq E9 navigation software. Manual co-registration was compared to automatic and semiautomatic co-registration using an active tracker. Also, manual point registration was compared to plane registration with and without an additional translation point. Finally, comparison was made between manual and automatic selection of reference points. In each experiment, accuracy of the co-registration method was determined by measurement of the residual displacement in phantom lesions by two independent observers.ResultsMean displacements for a superficial and deep liver lesion were comparable after manual and semiautomatic co-registration: 2.4 and 2.0 mm versus 2.0 and 2.5 mm, respectively. Both methods were significantly better than automatic co-registration: 5.9 and 5.2 mm residual displacement (p < 0.001; p < 0.01). The accuracy of manual point registration was higher than that of plane registration, the latter being heavily dependent on accurate matching of axial CT and US images by the operator. Automatic reference point selection resulted in significantly lower registration accuracy compared to manual point selection despite lower root-mean-square deviation (RMSD)more » values.ConclusionThe accuracy of manual and semiautomatic co-registration is better than that of automatic co-registration. For manual co-registration using a plane, choosing the correct plane orientation is an essential first step in the registration process. Automatic reference point selection based on RMSD values is error-prone.« less

Authors:
; ;  [1];  [2];  [3];  [2];  [1]
  1. Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Radiology (Netherlands)
  2. Leiden University Medical Center, Interventional and Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology (Netherlands)
  3. Singapore General Hospital, Department of Interventional Radiology (Singapore)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22645168
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology; Journal Volume: 40; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2017 Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE); Article Copyright (c) 2017 The Author(s); http://www.springer-ny.com; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ACCURACY; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; COMPUTER CODES; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; ERRORS; IMAGES; LIVER; MANUALS; PHANTOMS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY

Citation Formats

Burgmans, Mark Christiaan, E-mail: m.c.burgmans@lumc.nl, Harder, J. Michiel den, E-mail: chiel.den.harder@gmail.com, Meershoek, Philippa, E-mail: P.Meershoek@lumc.nl, Berg, Nynke S. van den, E-mail: N.S.van-den-Berg@lumc.nl, Chan, Shaun Xavier Ju Min, E-mail: shaun.xavier.chan@singhealth.com.sg, Leeuwen, Fijs W. B. van, E-mail: F.W.B.van-Leeuwen@lumc.nl, and Erkel, Arian R. van, E-mail: a.r.van-erkel@lumc.nl. Phantom Study Investigating the Accuracy of Manual and Automatic Image Fusion with the GE Logiq E9: Implications for use in Percutaneous Liver Interventions. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1007/S00270-017-1607-3.
Burgmans, Mark Christiaan, E-mail: m.c.burgmans@lumc.nl, Harder, J. Michiel den, E-mail: chiel.den.harder@gmail.com, Meershoek, Philippa, E-mail: P.Meershoek@lumc.nl, Berg, Nynke S. van den, E-mail: N.S.van-den-Berg@lumc.nl, Chan, Shaun Xavier Ju Min, E-mail: shaun.xavier.chan@singhealth.com.sg, Leeuwen, Fijs W. B. van, E-mail: F.W.B.van-Leeuwen@lumc.nl, & Erkel, Arian R. van, E-mail: a.r.van-erkel@lumc.nl. Phantom Study Investigating the Accuracy of Manual and Automatic Image Fusion with the GE Logiq E9: Implications for use in Percutaneous Liver Interventions. United States. doi:10.1007/S00270-017-1607-3.
Burgmans, Mark Christiaan, E-mail: m.c.burgmans@lumc.nl, Harder, J. Michiel den, E-mail: chiel.den.harder@gmail.com, Meershoek, Philippa, E-mail: P.Meershoek@lumc.nl, Berg, Nynke S. van den, E-mail: N.S.van-den-Berg@lumc.nl, Chan, Shaun Xavier Ju Min, E-mail: shaun.xavier.chan@singhealth.com.sg, Leeuwen, Fijs W. B. van, E-mail: F.W.B.van-Leeuwen@lumc.nl, and Erkel, Arian R. van, E-mail: a.r.van-erkel@lumc.nl. Thu . "Phantom Study Investigating the Accuracy of Manual and Automatic Image Fusion with the GE Logiq E9: Implications for use in Percutaneous Liver Interventions". United States. doi:10.1007/S00270-017-1607-3.
@article{osti_22645168,
title = {Phantom Study Investigating the Accuracy of Manual and Automatic Image Fusion with the GE Logiq E9: Implications for use in Percutaneous Liver Interventions},
author = {Burgmans, Mark Christiaan, E-mail: m.c.burgmans@lumc.nl and Harder, J. Michiel den, E-mail: chiel.den.harder@gmail.com and Meershoek, Philippa, E-mail: P.Meershoek@lumc.nl and Berg, Nynke S. van den, E-mail: N.S.van-den-Berg@lumc.nl and Chan, Shaun Xavier Ju Min, E-mail: shaun.xavier.chan@singhealth.com.sg and Leeuwen, Fijs W. B. van, E-mail: F.W.B.van-Leeuwen@lumc.nl and Erkel, Arian R. van, E-mail: a.r.van-erkel@lumc.nl},
abstractNote = {PurposeTo determine the accuracy of automatic and manual co-registration methods for image fusion of three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) with real-time ultrasonography (US) for image-guided liver interventions.Materials and MethodsCT images of a skills phantom with liver lesions were acquired and co-registered to US using GE Logiq E9 navigation software. Manual co-registration was compared to automatic and semiautomatic co-registration using an active tracker. Also, manual point registration was compared to plane registration with and without an additional translation point. Finally, comparison was made between manual and automatic selection of reference points. In each experiment, accuracy of the co-registration method was determined by measurement of the residual displacement in phantom lesions by two independent observers.ResultsMean displacements for a superficial and deep liver lesion were comparable after manual and semiautomatic co-registration: 2.4 and 2.0 mm versus 2.0 and 2.5 mm, respectively. Both methods were significantly better than automatic co-registration: 5.9 and 5.2 mm residual displacement (p < 0.001; p < 0.01). The accuracy of manual point registration was higher than that of plane registration, the latter being heavily dependent on accurate matching of axial CT and US images by the operator. Automatic reference point selection resulted in significantly lower registration accuracy compared to manual point selection despite lower root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) values.ConclusionThe accuracy of manual and semiautomatic co-registration is better than that of automatic co-registration. For manual co-registration using a plane, choosing the correct plane orientation is an essential first step in the registration process. Automatic reference point selection based on RMSD values is error-prone.},
doi = {10.1007/S00270-017-1607-3},
journal = {Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology},
number = 6,
volume = 40,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2017},
month = {Thu Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2017}
}