Risto Kojcev1,2, Ashkan Khakzar3,4, Bernhard Fuerst1, Oliver Zettinig5, Carole Fahkry6, Robert DeJong6, Jeremy Richmon7, Russell Taylor8, Edoardo Sinibaldi2, Nassir Navab1,5. 1. Computer Aided Medical Procedures, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Center for Micro-BioRobotics, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Pontedera, Italy. 3. Computer Aided Medical Procedures, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. camp@jhu.edu. 4. Computer Aided Medical Procedures, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. camp@jhu.edu. 5. Computer Aided Medical Procedures, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. 6. Otolaryngology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. Division of Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Laboratory for Computational Sensing and Robotics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We present the evaluation of the reproducibility of measurements performed using robotic ultrasound imaging in comparison with expert-operated sonography. Robotic imaging for interventional procedures may be a valuable contribution, but requires reproducibility for its acceptance in clinical routine. We study this by comparing repeated measurements based on robotic and expert-operated ultrasound imaging. METHODS: Robotic ultrasound acquisition is performed in three steps under user guidance: First, the patient is observed using a 3D camera on the robot end effector, and the user selects the region of interest. This allows for automatic planning of the robot trajectory. Next, the robot executes a sweeping motion following the planned trajectory, during which the ultrasound images and tracking data are recorded. As the robot is compliant, deviations from the path are possible, for instance due to patient motion. Finally, the ultrasound slices are compounded to create a volume. Repeated acquisitions can be performed automatically by comparing the previous and current patient surface. RESULTS: After repeated image acquisitions, the measurements based on acquisitions performed by the robotic system and expert are compared. Within our case series, the expert measured the anterior-posterior, longitudinal, transversal lengths of both of the left and right thyroid lobes on each of the 4 healthy volunteers 3 times, providing 72 measurements. Subsequently, the same procedure was performed using the robotic system resulting in a cumulative total of 144 clinically relevant measurements. Our results clearly indicated that robotic ultrasound enables more repeatable measurements. CONCLUSIONS: A robotic ultrasound platform leads to more reproducible data, which is of crucial importance for planning and executing interventions.
PURPOSE: We present the evaluation of the reproducibility of measurements performed using robotic ultrasound imaging in comparison with expert-operated sonography. Robotic imaging for interventional procedures may be a valuable contribution, but requires reproducibility for its acceptance in clinical routine. We study this by comparing repeated measurements based on robotic and expert-operated ultrasound imaging. METHODS: Robotic ultrasound acquisition is performed in three steps under user guidance: First, the patient is observed using a 3D camera on the robot end effector, and the user selects the region of interest. This allows for automatic planning of the robot trajectory. Next, the robot executes a sweeping motion following the planned trajectory, during which the ultrasound images and tracking data are recorded. As the robot is compliant, deviations from the path are possible, for instance due to patient motion. Finally, the ultrasound slices are compounded to create a volume. Repeated acquisitions can be performed automatically by comparing the previous and current patient surface. RESULTS: After repeated image acquisitions, the measurements based on acquisitions performed by the robotic system and expert are compared. Within our case series, the expert measured the anterior-posterior, longitudinal, transversal lengths of both of the left and right thyroid lobes on each of the 4 healthy volunteers 3 times, providing 72 measurements. Subsequently, the same procedure was performed using the robotic system resulting in a cumulative total of 144 clinically relevant measurements. Our results clearly indicated that robotic ultrasound enables more repeatable measurements. CONCLUSIONS: A robotic ultrasound platform leads to more reproducible data, which is of crucial importance for planning and executing interventions.
Authors: David S Cooper; Gerard M Doherty; Bryan R Haugen; Bryan R Hauger; Richard T Kloos; Stephanie L Lee; Susan J Mandel; Ernest L Mazzaferri; Bryan McIver; Furio Pacini; Martin Schlumberger; Steven I Sherman; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle Journal: Thyroid Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Christoph Hennersperger; Bernhard Fuerst; Salvatore Virga; Oliver Zettinig; Benjamin Frisch; Thomas Neff; Nassir Navab Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Risto Kojcev; Bernhard Fuerst; Oliver Zettinig; Javad Fotouhi; Sing Chun Lee; Benjamin Frisch; Russell Taylor; Edoardo Sinibaldi; Nassir Navab Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Junichi Tokuda; Gregory S Fischer; Xenophon Papademetris; Ziv Yaniv; Luis Ibanez; Patrick Cheng; Haiying Liu; Jack Blevins; Jumpei Arata; Alexandra J Golby; Tina Kapur; Steve Pieper; Everette C Burdette; Gabor Fichtinger; Clare M Tempany; Nobuhiko Hata Journal: Int J Med Robot Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.547
Authors: Ray Gervacio F Blanco; Joseph Califano; Barbara Messing; Jeremy Richmon; Jia Liu; Harry Quon; Geoffrey Neuner; John Saunders; Patrick K Ha; Sheila Sheth; Maura Gillison; Carole Fakhry Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Markus Krönke; Christine Eilers; Desislava Dimova; Melanie Köhler; Gabriel Buschner; Lilit Schweiger; Lemonia Konstantinidou; Marcus Makowski; James Nagarajah; Nassir Navab; Wolfgang Weber; Thomas Wendler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 3.752