| Literature DB >> 35242538 |
Zakiullah Ali1,2, Christian Zakian1,2, Qian Li3, Jerome Gloriod4, Sophie Crozat5, François Bouvet5, Guillaume Pierre5, Vassilis Sarantos6, Massimiliano Di Pietro7, Krzysztof Flisikowski8, Peter Andersen9, Wolfgang Drexler3, Vasilis Ntziachristos1,2.
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is a common medical diagnostic procedure used for esophageal cancer detection. Current emerging capsule optoacoustic endoscopes, however, suffer from low pulse repetition rates and slow scanning units limit attainable imaging frame rates. Consequently, motion artifacts result in inaccurate spatial mapping and misinterpretation of data. To overcome these limitations, we report a 360º, 50 Hz frame rate, distal scanning capsule optoacoustic endoscope. The translational capability of the instrument for human GI tract imaging was characterized with an Archimedean spiral phantom consisting of twelve 100 µm sutures, a stainless steel mesh with a pitch of 3 mm and an ex vivo pig esophagus sample. We estimated an imaging penetration depth of ~0.84 mm in vivo by immersing the mesh phantom in intralipid solution to simulate light scattering in human esophageal tissue and validated our findings ex vivo using pig esophagus. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the translational potential of the proposed video-rate endoscope for human GI tract imaging.Entities:
Keywords: 360° field of view; Distal scanning; Fast imaging; GI, Gastrointestinal; OA, Optoacoustics; Optoacoustic endoscopy; Photoacoustics; RPM, Revolutions per minute; Slip rings; Ultrasound transducer; WLSE, White light Surveillance Endoscopy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35242538 PMCID: PMC8864533 DOI: 10.1016/j.pacs.2022.100333
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Photoacoustics ISSN: 2213-5979
Fig. 1Endoscopic transducer characterization (a) Cross-sectional and en-face view of the endoscopic transducer with a central aperture. TE: Transducer element, EC: Electrical Connector, L: Acoustic Lens, CA: Central Aperture Window, SR: Slip rings. (b) Benchtop optoacoustic endoscopy experimental setup. PBS: polarizing beam splitter, BS: beam splitter, BD: beam dump, PD: photodiode. (c) Optoacoustic transducer temporal and frequency response. (d) Axial and lateral Hilbert transducer resolutions (e) Hilbert depth-of-focus response.
Fig. 2Endoscope performance at 50 Hz B-scan frame rate (a) Twelve sutures with 100 µm thickness arranged in an Archimedean spiral phantom with a pitch of 3 mm. (b) 360º B scan image of phantom acquired at 50 Hz and 100 kHz pulse repetition rate. (c) Table listing the number of A lines per revolution and arc sampling interval at the transducer focal plane as a function of pulse repetition rate at a fixed frame rate of 50 Hz. (d) Table listing the number of A lines per revolution and arc sampling interval at the transducer focal plane as a function of frame rate at a fixed pulse repetition rate of 100 kHz (e) Lateral resolution measured at transducer focus at 50 Hz frame rate as a function of laser pulse repetition rate under the same experimental configurations listed in table (c). (f) Lateral resolution measured at transducer focus at 100 kHz laser pulse repetition rate as a function of B scan frame rate under the same experimental configurations listed in table (d).
Fig. 3Helical volumetric Cscan over 10 mm longitudinal pullback distance at 50 Hz B-scan rate and 100 kHz repetition rate (a) Aluminum phantom mesh mounted in an Archimedean spiral with a pitch of 3 mm. (b) 3D polar projection of Helical optoacoustic scan generated on Amira (c) 2D maximum intensity projection of Helical scan depicted in Cartesian coordinates. (d) 2D Axial maximum intensity projection of Helical scan depicted in Cartesian coordinates.
Fig. 4360º helical volumetric scanning over a 10 mm longitudinal pullback distance with intralipid solution. (a,b) 2D top and side maximum intensity projections, respectively, with 0.015% intralipid solution. The corresponding figure pairs (c,d), (e,f), (g,h),(i,j), (k,l) represent the 2D projections with 0.031%, 0.062%,0.125%,0.25%,0.5% intralipid concentration, respectively. (m) Table listing the corresponding reduced scattering coefficient at each IL concentration at 532 nm (n) The maximum intensity profile as a function of depth for all scattering coefficients (o) The relationship between depth and reduced scattering coefficient.
Fig. 5360º helical volumetric scanning of an ex vivo female pig esophagus over a 12 mm longitudinal pullback distance. (a) Ex vivo pig esophagus sample mounted on a 50 mL-Falcon tube for support (b) 3D volumetric render of helical scan (c,d) B scans taken at unique positions within the helical scan. Maximum intensity projection for (e) enface and (f) side views.