Dong Ik Cha1, Min Woo Lee2, Kyoung Doo Song1, Young-Taek Oh3, Ja-Yeon Jeong3, Jung-Woo Chang3, Jiwon Ryu3, Kyong Joon Lee3, Jaeil Kim3, Won-Chul Bang3, Dong Kuk Shin4, Sung Jin Choi4, Dalkwon Koh4, Bong Koo Seo4, Kyunga Kim5. 1. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, South Korea. 2. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, South Korea. leeminwoo0@gmail.com. 3. Medical Imaging R&D Group, Health & Medical Equipment Business, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Seoul, South Korea. 4. Infrastructure Technology Lab, R&D Center, Samsung Medison, Seoul, South Korea. 5. Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology Center, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and required time for image fusion of real-time ultrasound (US) with pre-procedural magnetic resonance (MR) images between positioning auto-registration and manual registration for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation or biopsy of hepatic lesions. METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and all patients gave written informed consent. Twenty-two patients (male/female, n = 18/n = 4; age, 61.0 ± 7.7 years) who were referred for planning US to assess the feasibility of radiofrequency ablation (n = 21) or biopsy (n = 1) for focal hepatic lesions were included. One experienced radiologist performed the two types of image fusion methods in each patient. The performance of auto-registration and manual registration was evaluated. The accuracy of the two methods, based on measuring registration error, and the time required for image fusion for both methods were recorded using in-house software and respectively compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Image fusion was successful in all patients. The registration error was not significantly different between the two methods (auto-registration: median, 3.75 mm; range, 1.0-15.8 mm vs. manual registration: median, 2.95 mm; range, 1.2-12.5 mm, p = 0.242). The time required for image fusion was significantly shorter with auto-registration than with manual registration (median, 28.5 s; range, 18-47 s, vs. median, 36.5 s; range, 14-105 s, p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Positioning auto-registration showed promising results compared with manual registration, with similar accuracy and even shorter registration time.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and required time for image fusion of real-time ultrasound (US) with pre-procedural magnetic resonance (MR) images between positioning auto-registration and manual registration for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation or biopsy of hepatic lesions. METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and all patients gave written informed consent. Twenty-two patients (male/female, n = 18/n = 4; age, 61.0 ± 7.7 years) who were referred for planning US to assess the feasibility of radiofrequency ablation (n = 21) or biopsy (n = 1) for focal hepatic lesions were included. One experienced radiologist performed the two types of image fusion methods in each patient. The performance of auto-registration and manual registration was evaluated. The accuracy of the two methods, based on measuring registration error, and the time required for image fusion for both methods were recorded using in-house software and respectively compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Image fusion was successful in all patients. The registration error was not significantly different between the two methods (auto-registration: median, 3.75 mm; range, 1.0-15.8 mm vs. manual registration: median, 2.95 mm; range, 1.2-12.5 mm, p = 0.242). The time required for image fusion was significantly shorter with auto-registration than with manual registration (median, 28.5 s; range, 18-47 s, vs. median, 36.5 s; range, 14-105 s, p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Positioning auto-registration showed promising results compared with manual registration, with similar accuracy and even shorter registration time.
Authors: Andrzej Grzybowski; Ronald A Schachar; Magdalena Gaca-Wysocka; Ira H Schachar; Farhad Kamangar; Barbara K Pierscionek Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Won Chang; Jeong Min Lee; Dong Ho Lee; Jeong Hee Yoon; Yoon Jun Kim; Jung Hwan Yoon; Joon Koo Han Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 3.240