Andrew Chan1, Eric Parent2, Edmond Lou3,4. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Alberta, 1098 Research Transition Facility, 8308-114 Street, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2V2, Canada. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, 2-50 Corbett Hall, Edmonton, AB, T6G2G4, Canada. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Alberta, 1098 Research Transition Facility, 8308-114 Street, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2V2, Canada. elou@ualberta.ca. 4. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Alberta, Donadeo ICE 11-371, 9211-116 Street, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1H9, Canada. elou@ualberta.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Determine the positional, rotational and reconstruction accuracy of a 3D ultrasound system to be used for image registration in navigation surgery. METHODS: A custom 3D ultrasound for spinal surgery image registration was developed using Optitrack Prime 13-W motion capture cameras and a SonixTablet Ultrasound System. Temporal and spatial calibration was completed to account for time latencies between the two systems and to ensure accurate motion tracking of the ultrasound transducer. A mock operating room capture volume with a pegboard grid was set up to allow phantoms to be placed at a variety of predetermined positions to validate accuracy measurements. Five custom-designed ultrasound phantoms were 3D printed to allow for a range of linear and angular dimensions to be measured when placed on the pegboard. RESULTS: Temporal and spatial calibration was completed with measurement repeatabilities of 0.2 mm and 0.5° after calibration. The mean positional accuracy was within 0.4 mm, with all values within 0.5 mm within the critical surgical regions and 96% of values within 1 mm within the full capture volume. All orientation values were within 1.5°. Reconstruction accuracy was within 0.6 mm and 0.9° for geometrically shaped phantoms and 0.5 and 1.9° for vertebrae-mimicking phantoms. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the developed 3D ultrasound system meets the 1 mm and 5° requirements of spinal surgery from this study. Further repeatability studies and evaluation on vertebrae are needed to validate the system for surgical use.
PURPOSE: Determine the positional, rotational and reconstruction accuracy of a 3D ultrasound system to be used for image registration in navigation surgery. METHODS: A custom 3D ultrasound for spinal surgery image registration was developed using Optitrack Prime 13-W motion capture cameras and a SonixTablet Ultrasound System. Temporal and spatial calibration was completed to account for time latencies between the two systems and to ensure accurate motion tracking of the ultrasound transducer. A mock operating room capture volume with a pegboard grid was set up to allow phantoms to be placed at a variety of predetermined positions to validate accuracy measurements. Five custom-designed ultrasound phantoms were 3D printed to allow for a range of linear and angular dimensions to be measured when placed on the pegboard. RESULTS: Temporal and spatial calibration was completed with measurement repeatabilities of 0.2 mm and 0.5° after calibration. The mean positional accuracy was within 0.4 mm, with all values within 0.5 mm within the critical surgical regions and 96% of values within 1 mm within the full capture volume. All orientation values were within 1.5°. Reconstruction accuracy was within 0.6 mm and 0.9° for geometrically shaped phantoms and 0.5 and 1.9° for vertebrae-mimicking phantoms. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the developed 3D ultrasound system meets the 1 mm and 5° requirements of spinal surgery from this study. Further repeatability studies and evaluation on vertebrae are needed to validate the system for surgical use.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D ultrasound; Image guidance; Navigation; Scoliosis; Spinal surgery
Authors: M R Zindrick; G W Knight; M J Sartori; T J Carnevale; A G Patwardhan; M A Lorenz Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2000-11-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Graham M Treece; Andrew H Gee; Richard W Prager; Charlotte J C Cash; Laurence H Berman Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: B Stephens Richards; Robert M Bernstein; Charles R D'Amato; George H Thompson Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: G Unsgaard; O M Rygh; T Selbekk; T B Müller; F Kolstad; F Lindseth; T A Nagelhus Hernes Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2005-12-19 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: G P Penney; D C Barratt; C S K Chan; M Slomczykowski; T J Carter; P J Edwards; D J Hawkes Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2006-03-07 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Jeffrey D Coe; Vincent Arlet; William Donaldson; Sigurd Berven; Darrell S Hanson; Ram Mudiyam; Joseph H Perra; Christopher I Shaffrey Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468