scholarly journals Current accuracy of surface matching compared to adhesive markers in patient-to-image registration

2019 ◽  
Vol 161 (5) ◽  
pp. 865-870 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mireli A. Mongen ◽  
Peter W. A. Willems
Keyword(s):  
Image Registration ◽  
Surface Matching ◽  
Current Accuracy

Application accuracy in frameless image-guided neurosurgery: a comparison study of three patient-to-image registration methods

2007 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 1012-1016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Woerdeman ◽  
Peter W. A. Willems ◽  
Herke J. Noordmans ◽  
Cornelis A. F. Tulleken ◽  
Jan Willem Berkelbach van der Sprenkel
Keyword(s):  
Image Registration ◽  
Target Location ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Fiducial Marker ◽  
Optical Tracking ◽  
Surface Matching ◽  
Frameless Stereotaxy ◽  
Anatomical Landmarks ◽  
Registration Method ◽  
Image Guided

Object The aim of this study was to compare three patient-to-image registration methods in frameless stereotaxy in terms of their application accuracy (the accuracy with which the position of a target can be determined intraoperatively). In frameless stereotaxy, imaging information is transposed to the surgical field to show the spatial position of a localizer or surgical instrument. The mathematical relationship between the image volume and the surgical working space is calculated using a rigid body transformation algorithm, based on point-pair matching or surface matching. Methods Fifty patients who were scheduled to undergo a frameless image-guided neurosurgical procedure were included in the study. Prior to surgery, the patients underwent either computerized tomography (CT) scanning or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with widely distributed adhesive fiducial markers on the scalp. An extra fiducial marker was placed on the head as a target, as near as possible to the intracranial lesion. Prior to each surgical procedure, an optical tracking system was used to perform three separate patient-to-image registration procedures, using anatomical landmarks, adhesive markers, or surface matching. Subsequent to each registration, the target registration error (TRE), defined as the Euclidean distance between the image space coordinates and world space coordinates of the target marker, was determined. Independent of target location or imaging modality, mean application accuracy (± standard deviation) was 2.49 ± 1.07 mm when using adhesive markers. Using the other two registration strategies, mean TREs were significantly larger (surface matching, 5.03 ± 2.30 mm; anatomical landmarks, 4.97 ± 2.29 mm; p < 0.001 for both). Conclusions The results of this study show that skin adhesive fiducial marker registration is the most accurate noninvasive registration method. When images from an earlier study are to be used and accuracy may be slightly compromised, anatomical landmarks and surface matching are equally accurate alternatives.

scholarly journals Featured Surface Matching Method for Liver Image Registration

IEEE Access ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 59723-59731
Author(s):  
Shu-Te Su ◽  
Ming-Chih Ho ◽  
Jia-Yush Yen ◽  
Yung-Yaw Chen
Keyword(s):  
Image Registration ◽  
Surface Matching ◽  
Matching Method ◽  
Liver Image

Breast Image Registration for PET-CT and MR based on 3D Surface Matching

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 201-206
Author(s):  
Ilyang Joo ◽  
Kanghun Jeong ◽  
Hyeonjoon moon
Keyword(s):  
Image Registration ◽  
Surface Matching ◽  
3D Surface ◽  
Breast Image ◽  
Pet Ct

Comparative study of NOTES alone vs. NOTES guided by a new image registration system for navigation in the mediastinum: A study in a porcine model

Endoscopy ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 44 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Córdova ◽  
R San José Estépar ◽  
A Rodríguez-D'Jesús ◽  
G Martínez-Pallí ◽  
P Arguis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Image Registration ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Porcine Model ◽  
Registration System
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document