S B Solomon1, P White, C M Wiener, J B Orens, K P Wang. 1. Departments of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. ssolomo@jhmi.edu
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare two different image registration methods for accurately displaying the position of a flexible bronchoscope on a previously acquired three-dimensional CT scan during bronchoscopy. SETTING: Bronchoscopy suite of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Fifteen adult patients scheduled for nonemergent bronchoscopy. METHODS: A miniature electromagnetic position sensor was placed at the tip of a flexible bronchoscope. Previously acquired three-dimensional CT scans were registered with the patient in the bronchoscopy suite. Registration method 1 used multiple skin fiducial markers. Registration method 2 used the inner surface of the trachea itself for registration. Method 1 was objectively assessed by measuring the error distance between the real skin marker position and the computer display position. Methods 1 and 2 were subjectively assessed by the bronchoscopist correlating visual bronchoscopic anatomic location with the computer display position on the CT image. RESULTS: The error distance (+/- SD) from known points for registration method 1 was 5.6 +/- 2.7 mm. Objective error distances were not measured for method 2 because no accurate placement of the bronchoscope sensor could be correlated with CT position. Subjectively, method 2 was judged more accurate than method 1 when compared with the fiberoptic view of the airways through the bronchoscope. Additionally, method 2 had the advantage of not requiring placement of fiducial markers before the CT scan. Respiratory motion contributed an error of 3.6 +/- 2.6 mm, which was partially compensated for by a second tracking sensor placed on the patient's chest. CONCLUSION: Image registration method 2 of surface fitting the trachea rather than method 1 of fiducial markers was subjectively judged to be superior for registering the position of a flexible bronchoscope during bronchoscopy. Method 2 was also more practical inasmuch as no special CT scanning technique was required before bronchoscopy.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare two different image registration methods for accurately displaying the position of a flexible bronchoscope on a previously acquired three-dimensional CT scan during bronchoscopy. SETTING: Bronchoscopy suite of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Fifteen adult patients scheduled for nonemergent bronchoscopy. METHODS: A miniature electromagnetic position sensor was placed at the tip of a flexible bronchoscope. Previously acquired three-dimensional CT scans were registered with the patient in the bronchoscopy suite. Registration method 1 used multiple skin fiducial markers. Registration method 2 used the inner surface of the trachea itself for registration. Method 1 was objectively assessed by measuring the error distance between the real skin marker position and the computer display position. Methods 1 and 2 were subjectively assessed by the bronchoscopist correlating visual bronchoscopic anatomic location with the computer display position on the CT image. RESULTS: The error distance (+/- SD) from known points for registration method 1 was 5.6 +/- 2.7 mm. Objective error distances were not measured for method 2 because no accurate placement of the bronchoscope sensor could be correlated with CT position. Subjectively, method 2 was judged more accurate than method 1 when compared with the fiberoptic view of the airways through the bronchoscope. Additionally, method 2 had the advantage of not requiring placement of fiducial markers before the CT scan. Respiratory motion contributed an error of 3.6 +/- 2.6 mm, which was partially compensated for by a second tracking sensor placed on the patient's chest. CONCLUSION: Image registration method 2 of surface fitting the trachea rather than method 1 of fiducial markers was subjectively judged to be superior for registering the position of a flexible bronchoscope during bronchoscopy. Method 2 was also more practical inasmuch as no special CT scanning technique was required before bronchoscopy.
Authors: Pietro Nardelli; Alexander Jaeger; Conor O'Shea; Kashif A Khan; Marcus P Kennedy; Pádraig Cantillon-Murphy Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Tao Tan; Zhang Li; Haixia Liu; Farhad G Zanjani; Quchang Ouyang; Yuling Tang; Zheyu Hu; Qiang Li Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Bernhard C Meyer; Olaf Peter; Markus Nagel; Martin Hoheisel; Bernd B Frericks; Karl-Jürgen Wolf; Frank K Wacker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-06-11 Impact factor: 5.315