| Literature DB >> 29399619 |
Anastasios Koulaouzidis1, Dimitris K Iakovidis2, Diana E Yung1, Evangelos Mazomenos3, Federico Bianchi4, Alexandros Karagyris5, George Dimas2, Danail Stoyanov3, Henrik Thorlacius6, Ervin Toth7, Gastone Ciuti4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is invaluable for minimally invasive endoscopy of the gastrointestinal tract; however, several technological limitations remain including lack of reliable lesion localization. We present an approach to 3D reconstruction and localization using visual information from 2D CE images. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Colored thumbtacks were secured in rows to the internal wall of a LifeLike bowel model. A PillCam SB3 was calibrated and navigated linearly through the lumen by a high-precision robotic arm. The motion estimation algorithm used data (light falling on the object, fraction of reflected light and surface geometry) from 2D CE images in the video sequence to achieve 3D reconstruction of the bowel model at various frames. The ORB-SLAM technique was used for 3D reconstruction and CE localization within the reconstructed model. This algorithm compared pairs of points between images for reconstruction and localization.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29399619 PMCID: PMC5794451 DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-121882
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1Experimental set-up. a Overview of set-up before opaque covering was placed over model bowel. b View of set-up showing length of rod with attached CE compared to bowel model. c Detail of assembled bowel model suspended from supports. d Bowel model opened after test, showing coloured thumbtacks fixed in rows. e PillCam SB3 capsule fixed to end of straight plastic rod to enable movement through model bowel lumen. f Assembled bowel model with thumbtacks seen through real time CE viewer.
Fig. 2Checkerboard pattern used for initial CE calibration. a The CE calibration pattern as printed. b The CE calibration pattern as viewed from the CE.
Best results for travel distance estimation obtained using Kannala and Brandt’s method.
| Row of pins | Travel distances (cm) | ||
| Actual | Estimated | Absolute error | |
| 1 | 19.8 | 20.7 | 0.9 |
| 2 | 17.4 | 14.8 | 2.6 |
| 3 | 19.9 | 20.7 | 0.8 |
| 4 | 19.6 | 20.9 | 1.3 |
Fig. 3Best results in travel distance estimation after calibration per row of thumbtacks. The error between the actual and the estimated travel distance is presented on top of the respective bars.
Fig. 4Graph showing estimated vs actual CE trajectory.
Fig. 5Reconstruction results using the modified SfS technique. Selected frames from the CE video are shown above, with the corresponding reconstructions below.
Fig. 6Results obtained using the ORB-SLAM algorithm. The location and post of the CE camera is estimated for each frame (current track in green rectangle; previous tracks in blue rectangles). The green line denotes the overall CE trajectory. The sparse 3D reconstruction is illustrated as a point cloud.