Jing Zeng1,2, Ziqi Liu3, Shan Jiang3, Qingsong Pang1, Ping Wang1. 1. Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tianjin Central Hospital of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Affiliated Hospital of Nankai University, Tianjin, People's Republic of China. 3. School of Mechanical Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our previous research demonstrated that under ideal conditions, rigid registration between MRI images and US images had high accuracy for real-time image guidance. The work presented in this paper focused on the application of the previously established procedures to a new context, including preoperative CT images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a template to calibrate the US probe and completed the registration between preoperative CT images and US images. Marker experiments on the accuracy of real-time needle trajectories in CT images were performed using micro electromagnetic sensors. Pelvic phantom experiments were carried out to test the registration accuracy between CT and US images, in addition to registration accuracy between US images and real-time needle trajectories (real-time space model). RESULTS: The US probe calibration error in CT images was 0.879 ± 0.149 mm. The difference of registration between US images and CT images was 0.935 ± 0.166 mm in the axial plane (n = 30) and 0.916 ± 0.143 mm in the sagittal plane (n =12). The difference of registration between US images and the needle's real-time trajectories was 0.951 ± 0.202 mm. CONCLUSION: Under ideal conditions, rigid registration between CT images and US images had high accuracy for real-time image guidance.
PURPOSE: Our previous research demonstrated that under ideal conditions, rigid registration between MRI images and US images had high accuracy for real-time image guidance. The work presented in this paper focused on the application of the previously established procedures to a new context, including preoperative CT images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a template to calibrate the US probe and completed the registration between preoperative CT images and US images. Marker experiments on the accuracy of real-time needle trajectories in CT images were performed using micro electromagnetic sensors. Pelvic phantom experiments were carried out to test the registration accuracy between CT and US images, in addition to registration accuracy between US images and real-time needle trajectories (real-time space model). RESULTS: The US probe calibration error in CT images was 0.879 ± 0.149 mm. The difference of registration between US images and CT images was 0.935 ± 0.166 mm in the axial plane (n = 30) and 0.916 ± 0.143 mm in the sagittal plane (n =12). The difference of registration between US images and the needle's real-time trajectories was 0.951 ± 0.202 mm. CONCLUSION: Under ideal conditions, rigid registration between CT images and US images had high accuracy for real-time image guidance.
Authors: O V Solberg; T Langø; G A Tangen; R Mårvik; B Ystgaard; A Rethy; T A N Hernes Journal: Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.442
Authors: Petra Georg; Richard Pötter; Dietmar Georg; Stefan Lang; Johannes C A Dimopoulos; Alina E Sturdza; Daniel Berger; Christian Kirisits; Wolfgang Dörr Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Renaud Mazeron; Lars U Fokdal; Kathrin Kirchheiner; Petra Georg; Noha Jastaniyah; Barbara Šegedin; Umesh Mahantshetty; Peter Hoskin; Ina Jürgenliemk-Schulz; Christian Kirisits; Jacob C Lindegaard; Wolfgang Dörr; Christine Haie-Meder; Kari Tanderup; Richard Pötter Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Jennifer Moughan; William Small; Charles Levenback; Revathy Iyer; Sharon Hymes; Adam P Dicker; Brigitte Miller; Beth Erickson; David K Gaffney Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Richard Pötter; Petra Georg; Johannes C A Dimopoulos; Magdalena Grimm; Daniel Berger; Nicole Nesvacil; Dietmar Georg; Maximilian P Schmid; Alexander Reinthaller; Alina Sturdza; Christian Kirisits Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Hualin Zhang; Eric D Donnelly; Jonathan B Strauss; Zhuang Kang; Mahesh Gopalakrishnan; Plato C Lee; Gocha Khelashvili; Chithra K Nair; Brian H Lee; Vythialingam Sathiaseelan Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 2.102