DocumentCode :
34975
Title :
Comparison Study of Intraoperative Surface Acquisition Methods for Surgical Navigation
Author :
Simpson, Amber L. ; Burgner, Jessica ; Glisson, C.L. ; Herrell, S. Duke ; Ma, Bojiang ; Pheiffer, Thomas S. ; Webster, Robert J. ; Miga, Michael I.
Author_Institution :
Dept. of Biomed. Eng., Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN, USA
Volume :
60
Issue :
4
fYear :
2013
fDate :
Apr-13
Firstpage :
1090
Lastpage :
1099
Abstract :
Soft-tissue image-guided interventions often require the digitization of organ surfaces for providing correspondence from medical images to the physical patient in the operating room. In this paper, the effect of several inexpensive surface acquisition techniques on target registration error and surface registration error (SRE) for soft tissue is investigated. A systematic approach is provided to compare image-to-physical registrations using three different methods of organ spatial digitization: 1) a tracked laser-range scanner (LRS), 2) a tracked pointer, and 3) a tracked conoscopic holography sensor (called a conoprobe). For each digitization method, surfaces of phantoms and biological tissues were acquired and registered to CT image volume counterparts. A comparison among these alignments demonstrated that registration errors were statistically smaller with the conoprobe than the tracked pointer and LRS ( p <; 0.01). In all acquisitions, the conoprobe outperformed the LRS and tracked pointer: for example, the arithmetic means of the SRE over all data acquisitions with a porcine liver were 1.73 ±0.77 mm, 3.25 ±0.78 mm, and 4.44 ±1.19 mm for the conoprobe, LRS, and tracked pointer, respectively. In a cadaveric kidney specimen, the arithmetic means of the SRE over all trials of the conoprobe and tracked pointer were 1.50 ±0.50 mm and 3.51 ±0.82 mm, respectively. Our results suggest that tissue displacements due to contact force and attempts to maintain contact with tissue, compromise registrations that are dependent on data acquired from a tracked surgical instrument and we provide an alternative method (tracked conoscopic holography) of digitizing surfaces for clinical usage. The tracked conoscopic holography device outperforms LRS acquisitions with respect to registration accuracy.
Keywords :
biological tissues; biomedical equipment; computerised tomography; data acquisition; holography; image registration; image scanners; image sensors; kidney; laser applications in medicine; liver; medical image processing; optical scanners; phantoms; surgery; CT image volume counterparts; LRS; LRS acquisitions; SRE; arithmetic means; biological tissues; cadaveric kidney specimen; conoprobe; contact force; data acquisitions; image-to-physical registrations; intraoperative surface acquisition methods; medical image; operating room; organ spatial digitization; organ surfaces digitization; phantoms; physical patient; porcine liver; registration accuracy; soft tissue image-guided interventions; surface registration error; surgical navigation; target registration error; tissue displacements; tracked conoscopic holography device; tracked conoscopic holography sensor; tracked laser-range scanner; tracked pointer; tracked surgical instrument; Computed tomography; Holography; Iterative closest point algorithm; Liver; Phantoms; Signal to noise ratio; Target tracking; Image-guided surgery; registration; surface data acquisition; target registration error; Animals; Brain; Holography; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Lasers; Liver; Models, Biological; Phantoms, Imaging; Signal-To-Noise Ratio; Statistics, Nonparametric; Surface Properties; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Swine; Tomography, X-Ray Computed;
fLanguage :
English
Journal_Title :
Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
Publisher :
ieee
ISSN :
0018-9294
Type :
jour
DOI :
10.1109/TBME.2012.2215033
Filename :
6280636
Link To Document :
بازگشت