OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to evaluate whether a novel global position system (GPS)-like position-sensing technology will enable accurate co-registration of images between imaging modalities. Co-registration of images obtained by different imaging modalities will allow for comparison and fusion between imaging modalities, and therefore has significant clinical and research implications. We compared ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) specimens using a novel position-sensing technology that uses an electromagnetic (EM) transmitter and sensors mounted on a US transducer. We then evaluated in vivo US-US and US-MRI co-registration. METHODS: Thirteen CEA specimens underwent 3.0 Tesla MRI, after which images were uploaded to a LOGIQ E9 3D (GE Healthcare, Wauwatosa, WI) US system and registered by identifying two to three common points. A similar method was used to evaluate US-MRI co-registration in patients with carotid atherosclerosis. For carotid intima-media thickness (C-IMT) measurements, 10 volunteers underwent bilateral carotid US scans co-registered to three-dimensional US maps created on the initial visit, with a repeat scan 2 days later. RESULTS: For the CEA specimens, there was a mean of 20 (standard error [SE] 2.0) frames per MRI slice. The mean frame difference, over 33 registration markers, between MRI and US scans for readers 1 and 2 was -2.82 ± 19.32 and 2.09 ± 14.68 (mean ± 95% CI) frames, respectively. The US-MRI intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the first and second readers were 0.995 and 0.997, respectively. For patients with carotid atherosclerosis, the mean US frames per MRI slice (9 [SE 2.3]) was within range of that observed with CEA specimens. Inter-visit, intra-reader, and inter-reader reproducibility of C-IMT measurements were consistently high (side-averaged ICC >0.9). CONCLUSION: Accurate co-registration between US and other modalities is feasible with a GPS-like technology, which has significant clinical and research applicability.
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to evaluate whether a novel global position system (GPS)-like position-sensing technology will enable accurate co-registration of images between imaging modalities. Co-registration of images obtained by different imaging modalities will allow for comparison and fusion between imaging modalities, and therefore has significant clinical and research implications. We compared ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) specimens using a novel position-sensing technology that uses an electromagnetic (EM) transmitter and sensors mounted on a US transducer. We then evaluated in vivo US-US and US-MRI co-registration. METHODS: Thirteen CEA specimens underwent 3.0 Tesla MRI, after which images were uploaded to a LOGIQ E9 3D (GE Healthcare, Wauwatosa, WI) US system and registered by identifying two to three common points. A similar method was used to evaluate US-MRI co-registration in patients with carotid atherosclerosis. For carotid intima-media thickness (C-IMT) measurements, 10 volunteers underwent bilateral carotid US scans co-registered to three-dimensional US maps created on the initial visit, with a repeat scan 2 days later. RESULTS: For the CEA specimens, there was a mean of 20 (standard error [SE] 2.0) frames per MRI slice. The mean frame difference, over 33 registration markers, between MRI and US scans for readers 1 and 2 was -2.82 ± 19.32 and 2.09 ± 14.68 (mean ± 95% CI) frames, respectively. The US-MRI intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the first and second readers were 0.995 and 0.997, respectively. For patients with carotid atherosclerosis, the mean US frames per MRI slice (9 [SE 2.3]) was within range of that observed with CEA specimens. Inter-visit, intra-reader, and inter-reader reproducibility of C-IMT measurements were consistently high (side-averaged ICC >0.9). CONCLUSION: Accurate co-registration between US and other modalities is feasible with a GPS-like technology, which has significant clinical and research applicability.
Authors: Andrew D Mackinnon; Paula Jerrard-Dunne; Matthias Sitzer; Alexandra Buehler; Stefan von Kegler; Hugh S Markus Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-07-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Salman Choudhary; Catherine L Higgins; Iou Yih Chen; Michael Reardon; Gerald Lawrie; G Wesley Vick; Christof Karmonik; David P Via; Joel D Morrisett Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2006-08-03 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: R Collins; G Cranny; J Burch; R Aguiar-Ibáñez; D Craig; K Wright; E Berry; M Gough; J Kleijnen; M Westwood Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Dan Stoianovici; Chunwoo Kim; Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli; Peter Sebrecht; Doru Petrisor; Jonathan Coleman; Stephen B Solomon; Hedvig Hricak Journal: IEEE ASME Trans Mechatron Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 5.303