Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-017-1607-3
Title: Phantom Study Investigating the Accuracy of Manual and Automatic Image Fusion with the GE Logiq E9: Implications for use in Percutaneous Liver Interventions
Authors: Burgmans, M.C
den Harder, J.M
Meershoek, P
van den Berg, N.S
Chan, S.X.J.M 
van Leeuwen, F.W.B
van Erkel, A.R
Keywords: Article
computed tomography scanner
computer assisted tomography
controlled study
echography
imaging phantom
liver injury
liver metastasis
measurement accuracy
priority journal
ultrasound transducer
echography
human
image processing
liver
multimodal imaging
procedures
reproducibility
three dimensional imaging
x-ray computed tomography
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Liver
Multimodal Imaging
Phantoms, Imaging
Reproducibility of Results
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Ultrasonography
Issue Date: 2017
Publisher: Springer New York LLC
Citation: Burgmans, M.C, den Harder, J.M, Meershoek, P, van den Berg, N.S, Chan, S.X.J.M, van Leeuwen, F.W.B, van Erkel, A.R (2017). Phantom Study Investigating the Accuracy of Manual and Automatic Image Fusion with the GE Logiq E9: Implications for use in Percutaneous Liver Interventions. CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 40 (6) : 914-923. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-017-1607-3
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Abstract: Purpose: To 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 Methods: CT 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. Results: Mean 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. Conclusion: The 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. © 2017, The Author(s).
Source Title: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/179202
ISSN: 01741551
DOI: 10.1007/s00270-017-1607-3
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1007_s00270-017-1607-3.pdf1.11 MBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons