MOTIVATION: Medical imaging and its application in interventional guidance has revolutionized the development of minimally invasive surgical procedures leading to reduced patient trauma, fewer risks, and shorter recovery times. However, a frequently posed question with regard to an image guidance system is "how accurate is it?" On one hand, the accuracy challenge can be posed in terms of the tolerable clinical error associated with the procedure; on the other hand, accuracy is bound by the limitations of the system's components, including modeling, patient registration, and surgical instrument tracking, all of which ultimately impact the overall targeting capabilities of the system. METHODS: While these processes are not unique to any interventional specialty, this paper discusses them in the context of two different cardiac image guidance platforms: a model-enhanced ultrasound platform for intracardiac interventions and a prototype system for advanced visualization in image-guided cardiac ablation therapy. RESULTS: Pre-operative modeling techniques involving manual, semi-automatic and registration-based segmentation are discussed. The performance and limitations of clinically feasible approaches for patient registration evaluated both in the laboratory and in the operating room are presented. Our experience with two different magnetic tracking systems for instrument and ultrasound transducer localization is reported. Ultimately, the overall accuracy of the systems is discussed based on both in vitro and preliminary in vivo experience. CONCLUSION: While clinical accuracy is specific to a particular patient and procedure and vastly dependent on the surgeon's experience, the system's engineering limitations are critical to determine whether the clinical requirements can be met.
MOTIVATION: Medical imaging and its application in interventional guidance has revolutionized the development of minimally invasive surgical procedures leading to reduced patienttrauma, fewer risks, and shorter recovery times. However, a frequently posed question with regard to an image guidance system is "how accurate is it?" On one hand, the accuracy challenge can be posed in terms of the tolerable clinical error associated with the procedure; on the other hand, accuracy is bound by the limitations of the system's components, including modeling, patient registration, and surgical instrument tracking, all of which ultimately impact the overall targeting capabilities of the system. METHODS: While these processes are not unique to any interventional specialty, this paper discusses them in the context of two different cardiac image guidance platforms: a model-enhanced ultrasound platform for intracardiac interventions and a prototype system for advanced visualization in image-guided cardiac ablation therapy. RESULTS: Pre-operative modeling techniques involving manual, semi-automatic and registration-based segmentation are discussed. The performance and limitations of clinically feasible approaches for patient registration evaluated both in the laboratory and in the operating room are presented. Our experience with two different magnetic tracking systems for instrument and ultrasound transducer localization is reported. Ultimately, the overall accuracy of the systems is discussed based on both in vitro and preliminary in vivo experience. CONCLUSION: While clinical accuracy is specific to a particular patient and procedure and vastly dependent on the surgeon's experience, the system's engineering limitations are critical to determine whether the clinical requirements can be met.
Authors: Daniel S Cho; Cristian A Linte; Elvis Chen; Chris Wedlake; John Moore; John Barron; Rajni Patel; Terry M Peters Journal: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Date: 2010
Authors: Johann B Hummel; Michael R Bax; Michael L Figl; Yan Kang; Calvin Maurer; Wolfgang W Birkfellner; Helmar Bergmann; Ramin Shahidi Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Cristian A Linte; Marcin Wierzbicki; John Moore; Stephen H Little; Gérard M Guiraudon; Terry M Peters Journal: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Date: 2007
Authors: Cristian A Linte; Marcin Wierzbicki; John Moore; Gérard Guiraudon; Douglas L Jones; Terry M Peters Journal: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2007
Authors: Cristian A Linte; John Moore; Chris Wedlake; Daniel Bainbridge; Gérard M Guiraudon; Douglas L Jones; Terry M Peters Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Cristian A Linte; Jon J Camp; Maryam E Rettmann; Dieter Haemmerich; Mehmet K Aktas; David T Huang; Douglas L Packer; David R Holmes Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-03-01
Authors: Cristian A Linte; Jon J Camp; David R Holmes; Maryam E Rettmann; Douglas L Packer; Richard A Robb Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2013
Authors: Aruna V Arujuna; R James Housden; Yingliang Ma; Ronak Rajani; Gang Gao; Niels Nijhof; Pascal Cathier; Roland Bullens; Geert Gijsbers; Victoria Parish; Stamatis Kapetanakis; Jane Hancock; C Aldo Rinaldi; Michael Cooklin; Jaswinder Gill; Martyn Thomas; Mark D O'neill; Reza Razavi; Kawal S Rhode Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Lindsay E Bodart; Benjamin R Ciske; Jonathan Le; Nicole M Reilly; Roderick C Deaño; Steven M Ewer; Parag Tipnis; Peter S Rahko; Martin G Wagner; Amish N Raval; Michael A Speidel Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 4.071