4.7 Article

Displacement estimation with co-registered ultrasound for image guided neurosurgery: A quantitative in vivo porcine study

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING
卷 22, 期 11, 页码 1358-1368

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2003.819293

关键词

brain modeling; brain shift; image-guided neurosurgery; image registration; intraoperative ultrasound

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS033900] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01-NS33900] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain shift during open cranial surgery presents a challenge for maintaining registration with image-guidance systems. Ultrasound (US) is a convenient intraoperative imaging modality that may be a useful tool in detecting tissue shift and updating preoperative images based on intraoperative measurements of brain deformation. We have quantitatively evaluated the ability of spatially tracked freehand US to detect displacement of implanted markers in a series of three in vivo porcine experiments, where both US and computed tomography (CT) image acquisitions were obtained before and after deforming the brain. Marker displacements ranged from 0.5 to 8.5 mm. Comparisons between CT and US measurements showed a mean target localization error of 1.5 mm, and a mean vector error for displacement of 1.1 mm. Mean error in the magnitude of displacement was 0.6 mm. For ne of the animals studied, the US data was used in conjunction with a biomechanical model to nonrigidly re-register a baseline CT to the deformed brain. The mean error between the actual and deformed CT's was found to be on average 1.2 and 1.9 mm at the marker locations depending on the extent of the deformation induced. These findings indicate the potential accuracy in coregistered freehand US displacement tracking in brain tissue and suggest that the resulting information can be used to drive a modeling re-registration strategy to comparable levels of agreement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据