A multi-vertebrae CT to US registration of the lumbar spine in clinical data

Nagpal, Simrin; Abolmaesumi, Purang; Rasoulian, Abtin; Hacihaliloglu, Ilker; Ungi, Tamás; Osborn, Jill; Lessoway, Victoria A.; Rudan, John F.; Jaeger, Melanie; Rohling, Robert; Borschneck, Dan; Mousavi, Parvin

doi:10.1007/s11548-015-1247-5

Cited by 28 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these setups are still in an early experimental state and not yet accurate enough for clinical application. 18,20,31 In cranial surgery, iUS might be applied for navigation registration in craniotomy procedures; however, this is not applicable for transsphenoidal or burr hole procedures such as frameless or frame-based stereotactic procedures. In craniotomies, the actual patient registration might be performed directly by iUS imaging, which then defines the actual navigation coordinate system and allows subsequent integration of preoperative images by image registration of preoperative images with the 3D-iUS data.…”

Section: Radiation-free Automatic Registration Alternatives To Ictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliable navigation registration in cranial and spine surgery based on intraoperative computed tomography

Carl

Bopp

Saß

et al. 2019

Neurosurgical Focus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVELow registration errors are an important prerequisite for reliable navigation, independent of its use in cranial or spinal surgery. Regardless of whether navigation is used for trajectory alignment in biopsy or implant procedures, or for sophisticated augmented reality applications, all depend on a correct registration of patient space and image space. In contrast to fiducial, landmark, or surface matching–based registration, the application of intraoperative imaging allows user-independent automatic patient registration, which is less error prone. The authors’ aim in this paper was to give an overview of their experience using intraoperative CT (iCT) scanning for automatic registration with a focus on registration accuracy and radiation exposure.METHODSA total of 645 patients underwent iCT scanning with a 32-slice movable CT scanner in combination with navigation for trajectory alignment in biopsy and implantation procedures (n = 222) and for augmented reality (n = 437) in cranial and spine procedures (347 craniotomies and 42 transsphenoidal, 56 frameless stereotactic, 59 frame-based stereotactic, and 141 spinal procedures). The target registration error was measured using skin fiducials that were not part of the registration procedure. The effective dose was calculated by multiplying the dose length product with conversion factors.RESULTSAmong all 1281 iCT scans obtained, 1172 were used for automatic patient registration (645 initial registration scans and 527 repeat iCT scans). The overall mean target registration error was 0.86 ± 0.38 mm (± SD) (craniotomy, 0.88 ± 0.39 mm; transsphenoidal, 0.92 ± 0.39 mm; frameless, 0.74 ± 0.39 mm; frame-based, 0.84 ± 0.34 mm; and spinal, 0.80 ± 0.28 mm). Compared with standard diagnostic scans, a distinct reduction of the effective dose could be achieved using low-dose protocols for the initial registration scan with mean effective doses of 0.06 ± 0.04 mSv for cranial, 0.50 ± 0.09 mSv for cervical, 4.12 ± 2.13 mSv for thoracic, and 3.37 ± 0.93 mSv for lumbar scans without impeding registration accuracy.CONCLUSIONSReliable automatic patient registration can be achieved using iCT scanning. Low-dose protocols ensured a low radiation exposure for the patient. Low-dose scanning had no negative effect on navigation accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Radiation-free Automatic Registration Alternatives To Ictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliable navigation registration in cranial and spine surgery based on intraoperative computed tomography

Carl

Bopp

Saß

et al. 2019

Neurosurgical Focus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature, numerous US to CT bone registration schemes have been previously presented, which include feature- and/or intensity-based techniques [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. Referring to feature-based techniques, the registration of bone surfaces extracted from both CT and US volumes using a variant of the iterative closest point (ICP) [ 25 ] is a common approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Winter et al [ 19 , 26 ] described a surface–volume registration scheme to register US volume with enhanced bone contours to bone surface points culled from CT volume. Nagpal et al [ 22 ] presented a multi-body registration technique, which maximizes the similarity between CT and US data using features derived from the two modalities and voxel intensity information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All these previously presented registration schemes have been applied to long bones [ 17 , 21 ], vertebrae [ 19 , 22 , 23 ], and pelvis [ 16 , 17 , 24 ]. Although, there is no limitation in theory for applying previously described registration techniques to the talocrural joint, none of the studies have focused on this anatomical location.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three-Dimensional Registration of Freehand-Tracked Ultrasound to CT Images of the Talocrural Joint

Tümer

Kok

Vos

et al. 2018

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A rigid surface–volume registration scheme is presented in this study to register computed tomography (CT) and free-hand tracked ultrasound (US) images of the talocrural joint. Prior to registration, bone surfaces expected to be visible in US are extracted from the CT volume and bone contours in 2D US data are enhanced based on monogenic signal representation of 2D US images. A 3D monogenic signal data is reconstructed from the 2D data using the position of the US probe recorded with an optical tracking system. When registering the surface extracted from the CT scan to the monogenic signal feature volume, six transformation parameters are estimated so as to optimize the sum of monogenic signal features over the transformed surface. The robustness of the registration algorithm was tested on a dataset collected from 12 cadaveric ankles. The proposed method was used in a clinical case study to investigate the potential of US imaging for pre-operative planning of arthroscopic access to talar (osteo)chondral defects (OCDs). The results suggest that registrations with a registration error of 2 mm and less is achievable, and US has the potential to be used in assessment of an OCD’ arthroscopic accessibility, given the fact that 51% of the talar surface could be visualized.

show abstract

“…[22][23][24] Little attention has been paid to spine surface segmentation in US images especially those obtained in the transverse plane. Khallaghi et al, 25 Behnami et al, 26 Rasoulian et al, 27 and Nagpal et al 28 have incorporated statistical shape, pose, and scale priors obtained from segmented vertebral CT slices co-registered with spinal US images. Since the spinal US images have no prior enhancement, the quality of the vertebral features used for registration depends on the intensity profile of the spine surface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spine surface detection from local phase‐symmetry enhanced ridges in ultrasound images

Shajudeen

Righetti

2017

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A multi-vertebrae CT to US registration of the lumbar spine in clinical data

Cited by 28 publications

References 27 publications

Reliable navigation registration in cranial and spine surgery based on intraoperative computed tomography

Reliable navigation registration in cranial and spine surgery based on intraoperative computed tomography

Three-Dimensional Registration of Freehand-Tracked Ultrasound to CT Images of the Talocrural Joint

Spine surface detection from local phase‐symmetry enhanced ridges in ultrasound images

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About