Elisa Colombo1, Tim Fick2, Giuseppe Esposito3, Menno Germans3, Luca Regli3, Tristan van Doormaal3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center and University of Zürich, University Hospital Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zürich, ZH, Switzerland. Elisa.colombo@usz.ch. 2. Prinses Màxima Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Utrecht, CS, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Neurosurgery and Clinical Neuroscience Centerentrum, University Hospital of Zurich, Zürich, ZH, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Visualization, analysis and characterization of the angioarchitecture of a brain arteriovenous malformation (bAVM) present crucial steps for understanding and management of these complex lesions. Three-dimensional (3D) segmentation and 3D visualization of bAVMs play hereby a significant role. We performed a systematic review regarding currently available 3D segmentation and visualization techniques for bAVMs. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar were searched to identify studies reporting 3D segmentation techniques applied to bAVM characterization. Category of input scan, segmentation (automatic, semiautomatic, manual), time needed for segmentation and 3D visualization techniques were noted. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included. Thirteen (39%) used MRI as baseline imaging modality, 9 used DSA (27%), and 7 used CT (21%). Segmentation through automatic algorithms was used in 20 (61%), semiautomatic segmentation in 6 (18%), and manual segmentation in 7 (21%) studies. Median automatic segmentation time was 10 min (IQR 33), semiautomatic 25 min (IQR 73). Manual segmentation time was reported in only one study, with the mean of 5-10 min. Thirty-two (97%) studies used screens to visualize the 3D segmentations outcomes and 1 (3%) study utilized a heads-up display (HUD). Integration with mixed reality was used in 4 studies (12%). CONCLUSIONS: A golden standard for 3D visualization of bAVMs does not exist. This review describes a tendency over time to base segmentation on algorithms trained with machine learning. Unsupervised fuzzy-based algorithms thereby stand out as potential preferred strategy. Continued efforts will be necessary to improve algorithms, integrate complete hemodynamic assessment and find innovative tools for tridimensional visualization.
BACKGROUND: Visualization, analysis and characterization of the angioarchitecture of a brain arteriovenous malformation (bAVM) present crucial steps for understanding and management of these complex lesions. Three-dimensional (3D) segmentation and 3D visualization of bAVMs play hereby a significant role. We performed a systematic review regarding currently available 3D segmentation and visualization techniques for bAVMs. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar were searched to identify studies reporting 3D segmentation techniques applied to bAVM characterization. Category of input scan, segmentation (automatic, semiautomatic, manual), time needed for segmentation and 3D visualization techniques were noted. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included. Thirteen (39%) used MRI as baseline imaging modality, 9 used DSA (27%), and 7 used CT (21%). Segmentation through automatic algorithms was used in 20 (61%), semiautomatic segmentation in 6 (18%), and manual segmentation in 7 (21%) studies. Median automatic segmentation time was 10 min (IQR 33), semiautomatic 25 min (IQR 73). Manual segmentation time was reported in only one study, with the mean of 5-10 min. Thirty-two (97%) studies used screens to visualize the 3D segmentations outcomes and 1 (3%) study utilized a heads-up display (HUD). Integration with mixed reality was used in 4 studies (12%). CONCLUSIONS: A golden standard for 3D visualization of bAVMs does not exist. This review describes a tendency over time to base segmentation on algorithms trained with machine learning. Unsupervised fuzzy-based algorithms thereby stand out as potential preferred strategy. Continued efforts will be necessary to improve algorithms, integrate complete hemodynamic assessment and find innovative tools for tridimensional visualization.
Authors: Aishwarya Raman; Manish Uprety; Maria Jose Calero; Maria Resah B Villanueva; Narges Joshaghani; Nicole Villa; Omar Badla; Raman Goit; Samia E Saddik; Sarah N Dawood; Ahmad M Rabih; Ahmad Mohammed; Tharun Yadhav Selvamani; Jihan Mostafa Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-06-09
Authors: Michael T Lawton; W Caleb Rutledge; Helen Kim; Christian Stapf; Kevin J Whitehead; Dean Y Li; Timo Krings; Karel terBrugge; Douglas Kondziolka; Michael K Morgan; Karam Moon; Robert F Spetzler Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Ching-Jen Chen; Dale Ding; Colin P Derdeyn; Giuseppe Lanzino; Robert M Friedlander; Andrew M Southerland; Michael T Lawton; Jason P Sheehan Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ahmad Hafez; Päivi Koroknay-Pál; Elias Oulasvirta; Ahmed Abou Elseoud; Michael T Lawton; Mika Niemelä; Aki Laakso Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: J P Mohr; Michael K Parides; Christian Stapf; Ellen Moquete; Claudia S Moy; Jessica R Overbey; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Eric Vicaut; William L Young; Emmanuel Houdart; Charlotte Cordonnier; Marco A Stefani; Andreas Hartmann; Rüdiger von Kummer; Alessandra Biondi; Joachim Berkefeld; Catharina J M Klijn; Kirsty Harkness; Richard Libman; Xavier Barreau; Alan J Moskowitz Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-11-20 Impact factor: 79.321