PURPOSE: To develop an image guidance system that incorporates volumetric planning of spherical ablations and electromagnetic tracking of radiofrequency (RF) electrodes during insertion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulated tumors were created in three live swine by percutaneously injecting agar nodules into the lung. A treatment plan was devised for each tumor with optimization software to solve the planning problem. The desired output was the minimum number of overlapping ablation spheres necessary to ablate each tumor and the margin. The insertion plan was executed with use of the electromagnetic tracking system that guided the insertion of the probe into precomputed locations. After a 72-hour survival period, animals were killed and histopathologic sections of the tissue were examined for cell viability and burn pattern analysis. RESULTS: A planning algorithm to spherically cover the tumors and the margin was computed. Electromagnetic tracking allowed successful insertion of the instrument, and impedance roll-off was reached in all ablations. Depending on their size, the tumors and the tumor margins were successfully covered with two to four ablation spheres. The image registration error was 1.0 mm +/- 0.64. The overall error of probe insertion was 9.4 mm +/- 3.0 (N = 8). Analysis of histopathologic sections confirmed successful ablations of the tissue. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-assisted RF ablation planning and electromagnetically tracked probe insertion were successful in three swine, validating the feasibility of electromagnetic tracking-assisted tumor targeting. Image misregistration caused by respiratory motion and tissue deformation contributed to the overall error of probe insertion.
PURPOSE: To develop an image guidance system that incorporates volumetric planning of spherical ablations and electromagnetic tracking of radiofrequency (RF) electrodes during insertion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulated tumors were created in three live swine by percutaneously injecting agar nodules into the lung. A treatment plan was devised for each tumor with optimization software to solve the planning problem. The desired output was the minimum number of overlapping ablation spheres necessary to ablate each tumor and the margin. The insertion plan was executed with use of the electromagnetic tracking system that guided the insertion of the probe into precomputed locations. After a 72-hour survival period, animals were killed and histopathologic sections of the tissue were examined for cell viability and burn pattern analysis. RESULTS: A planning algorithm to spherically cover the tumors and the margin was computed. Electromagnetic tracking allowed successful insertion of the instrument, and impedance roll-off was reached in all ablations. Depending on their size, the tumors and the tumor margins were successfully covered with two to four ablation spheres. The image registration error was 1.0 mm +/- 0.64. The overall error of probe insertion was 9.4 mm +/- 3.0 (N = 8). Analysis of histopathologic sections confirmed successful ablations of the tissue. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-assisted RF ablation planning and electromagnetically tracked probe insertion were successful in three swine, validating the feasibility of electromagnetic tracking-assisted tumor targeting. Image misregistration caused by respiratory motion and tissue deformation contributed to the overall error of probe insertion.
Authors: D J Hawkes; D Barratt; J M Blackall; C Chan; P J Edwards; K Rhode; G P Penney; J McClelland; D L G Hill Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2004-12-28 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Andinet Enquobahrie; Patrick Cheng; Kevin Gary; Luis Ibanez; David Gobbi; Frank Lindseth; Ziv Yaniv; Stephen Aylward; Julien Jomier; Kevin Cleary Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2007-08-17 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Alexander Seitel; Nadine Bellemann; Mohammadreza Hafezi; Alfred M Franz; Mark Servatius; Arash Saffari; Thomas Kilgus; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Arianeb Mehrabi; Boris A Radeleff; Lena Maier-Hein Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Justin P McWilliams; Edward W Lee; Shota Yamamoto; Christopher T Loh; Stephen T Kee Journal: Semin Intervent Radiol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: F Cornelis; H Takaki; M Laskhmanan; J C Durack; J P Erinjeri; G I Getrajdman; M Maybody; C T Sofocleous; S B Solomon; G Srimathveeravalli Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Felix Nickel; Hannes G Kenngott; Jochen Neuhaus; Nathanael Andrews; Carly Garrow; Johannes Kast; Christof M Sommer; Tobias Gehrig; Carsten N Gutt; Hans-Peter Meinzer; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 4.584