Hassan Rivaz1, D Louis Collins. 1. PERFORM Centre, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Concordia University, 1455 Maisonneuve West, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada, hrivaz@ece.concordia.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sites that use ultrasound (US) in image-guided neurosurgery (IGNS) of brain tumors generally have three sets of imaging data: preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) image, pre-resection US, and post-resection US. The MR image is usually acquired days before the surgery, the pre-resection US is obtained after the craniotomy but before the resection, and finally, the post-resection US scan is performed after the resection of the tumor. The craniotomy and tumor resection both cause brain deformation, which significantly reduces the accuracy of the MR-US alignment. METHOD: Three unknown transformations exist between the three sets of imaging data: MR to pre-resection US, pre- to post-resection US, and MR to post-resection US. We use two algorithms that we have recently developed to perform the first two registrations (i.e., MR to pre-resection US and pre- to post-resection US). Regarding the third registration (MR to post-resection US), we evaluate three strategies. The first method performs a registration between the MR and pre-resection US, and another registration between the pre- and post-resection US. It then composes the two transformations to register MR and post-resection US; we call this method compositional registration. The second method ignores the pre-resection US and directly registers the MR and post-resection US; we refer to this method as direct registration. The third method is a combination of the first and second: it uses the solution of the compositional registration as an initial solution for the direct registration method. We call this method group-wise registration. RESULTS: We use data from 13 patients provided in the MNI BITE database for all of our analysis. Registration of MR and pre-resection US reduces the average of the mean target registration error (mTRE) from 4.1 to 2.4 mm. Registration of pre- and post-resection US reduces the average mTRE from 3.7 to 1.5 mm. Regarding the registration of MR and post-resection US, all three strategies reduce the mTRE. The initial average mTRE is 5.9 mm, which reduces to 3.3 mm with the compositional method, 2.9 mm with the direct technique, and 2.8 mm with the group-wise method. CONCLUSION: Deformable registration of MR and pre- and post-resection US images significantly improves their alignment. Among the three methods proposed for registering the MR to post-resection US, the group-wise method gives the lowest TRE values. Since the running time of all registration algorithms is less than 2 min on one core of a CPU, they can be integrated into IGNS systems for interactive use during surgery.
PURPOSE: Sites that use ultrasound (US) in image-guided neurosurgery (IGNS) of brain tumors generally have three sets of imaging data: preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) image, pre-resection US, and post-resection US. The MR image is usually acquired days before the surgery, the pre-resection US is obtained after the craniotomy but before the resection, and finally, the post-resection US scan is performed after the resection of the tumor. The craniotomy and tumor resection both cause brain deformation, which significantly reduces the accuracy of the MR-US alignment. METHOD: Three unknown transformations exist between the three sets of imaging data: MR to pre-resection US, pre- to post-resection US, and MR to post-resection US. We use two algorithms that we have recently developed to perform the first two registrations (i.e., MR to pre-resection US and pre- to post-resection US). Regarding the third registration (MR to post-resection US), we evaluate three strategies. The first method performs a registration between the MR and pre-resection US, and another registration between the pre- and post-resection US. It then composes the two transformations to register MR and post-resection US; we call this method compositional registration. The second method ignores the pre-resection US and directly registers the MR and post-resection US; we refer to this method as direct registration. The third method is a combination of the first and second: it uses the solution of the compositional registration as an initial solution for the direct registration method. We call this method group-wise registration. RESULTS: We use data from 13 patients provided in the MNI BITE database for all of our analysis. Registration of MR and pre-resection US reduces the average of the mean target registration error (mTRE) from 4.1 to 2.4 mm. Registration of pre- and post-resection US reduces the average mTRE from 3.7 to 1.5 mm. Regarding the registration of MR and post-resection US, all three strategies reduce the mTRE. The initial average mTRE is 5.9 mm, which reduces to 3.3 mm with the compositional method, 2.9 mm with the direct technique, and 2.8 mm with the group-wise method. CONCLUSION: Deformable registration of MR and pre- and post-resection US images significantly improves their alignment. Among the three methods proposed for registering the MR to post-resection US, the group-wise method gives the lowest TRE values. Since the running time of all registration algorithms is less than 2 min on one core of a CPU, they can be integrated into IGNS systems for interactive use during surgery.
Authors: Christopher Nimsky; Atsushi Fujita; Oliver Ganslandt; Boris Von Keller; Rudolf Fahlbusch Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Mario Giordano; Venelin M Gerganov; Hussam Metwali; Rudolf Fahlbusch; Amir Samii; Madjid Samii; Helmut Bertalanffy Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Inês Machado; Matthew Toews; Elizabeth George; Prashin Unadkat; Walid Essayed; Jie Luo; Pedro Teodoro; Herculano Carvalho; Jorge Martins; Polina Golland; Steve Pieper; Sarah Frisken; Alexandra Golby; William Wells Iii; Yangming Ou Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Sarah Frisken; Ma Luo; Parikshit Juvekar; Adomas Bunevicius; Ines Machado; Prashin Unadkat; Melina M Bertotti; Matt Toews; William M Wells; Michael I Miga; Alexandra J Golby Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Nazim Haouchine; Parikshit Juvekar; William M Wells; Stephane Cotin; Alexandra Golby; Sarah Frisken Journal: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Date: 2020-09-29
Authors: Nazim Haouchine; Parikshit Juvekar; Alexandra Golby; William M Wells; Stephane Cotin; Sarah Frisken Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2020-03-16
Authors: Nazim Haouchine; Parikshit Juvekar; Michael Nercessian; William Wells; Alexandra Golby; Sarah Frisken Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Inês Machado; Matthew Toews; Jie Luo; Prashin Unadkat; Walid Essayed; Elizabeth George; Pedro Teodoro; Herculano Carvalho; Jorge Martins; Polina Golland; Steve Pieper; Sarah Frisken; Alexandra Golby; William Wells Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: J Nitsch; J Klein; P Dammann; K Wrede; O Gembruch; J H Moltz; H Meine; U Sure; R Kikinis; D Miller Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 4.881