| Literature DB >> 27085384 |
Ah Yeong Kim1, Min Woo Lee2, Dong Ik Cha1, Hyo Keun Lim3, Young-Taek Oh4, Ja-Yeon Jeong4, Jung-Woo Chang4, Jiwon Ryu4, Kyong Joon Lee4, Jaeil Kim4, Won-Chul Bang4, Dong Kuk Shin5, Sung Jin Choi5, Dalkwon Koh5, Bong Koo Seo5, Kyunga Kim6.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of and the time required for image fusion between real-time ultrasonography (US) and pre-procedural magnetic resonance (MR) images using automatic registration by a liver surface only method and automatic registration by a liver surface and vessel method. This study consisted of 20 patients referred for planning US to assess the feasibility of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation or biopsy for focal hepatic lesions. The first 10 consecutive patients were evaluated by an experienced radiologist using the automatic registration by liver surface and vessel method, whereas the remaining 10 patients were evaluated using the automatic registration by liver surface only method. For all 20 patients, image fusion was automatically executed after following the protocols and fused real-time US and MR images moved synchronously. The accuracy of each method was evaluated by measuring the registration error, and the time required for image fusion was assessed by evaluating the recorded data using in-house software. The results obtained using the two automatic registration methods were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Image fusion was successful in all 20 patients, and the time required for image fusion was significantly shorter with the automatic registration by liver surface only method than with the automatic registration by liver surface and vessel method (median: 43.0 s, range: 29-74 s vs. median: 83.0 s, range: 46-101 s; p = 0.002). The registration error did not significantly differ between the two methods (median: 4.0 mm, range: 2.1-9.9 mm vs. median: 3.7 mm, range: 1.8-5.2 mm; p = 0.496). The automatic registration by liver surface only method offers faster image fusion between real-time US and pre-procedural MR images than does the automatic registration by liver surface and vessel method. However, the degree of accuracy was similar for the two methods.Entities:
Keywords: Biopsy; Fusion imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Radiofrequency ablation; Registration error; Registration time; Ultrasound
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27085384 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.02.008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol ISSN: 0301-5629 Impact factor: 2.998