Laser range scanning for image-guided neurosurgery: Investigation of image-to-physical space registrations
Laser range scanning for image-guided neurosurgery: Investigation of image-to-physical space registrations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1118/1.2870216
复制
发表时间：
2008-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Miga, M. I.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cao, Aize;Thompson, R. C.;Miga, M. I.
在这篇文章中，一套全面的配准方法被用来提供图像到物理空间配准的图像引导神经外科在临床研究。所有方法的核心是使用由激光范围扫描技术提供的纹理点云。目的是对包括颅外（基于皮肤标记点的配准（PBR）和基于面部的表面配准）和颅内方法（特征PBR、皮质血管轮廓配准、组合几何/强度表面配准方法以及该方法的约束形式以提高鲁棒性）的配准方法进行系统比较。该平台有助于选择出现在患者术中皮质表面和术前钆增强磁共振（MR）图像体积上的离散软组织标志，即，真正对应的新目标。在一项11名患者的研究中，采集数据以允许在配准误差的背景下对配准方法进行统计比较。结果表明，术中基于面部的表面配准在统计学上等同于传统的皮肤标记配准。对四种颅内配准方法进行了研究，结果表明，特征PBR、皮质血管轮廓配准、无约束几何/强度配准和约束几何/强度配准的靶配准误差分别为1.6 +/-0.5 mm、1.7 +/- 0.5 mm、3.9 +/- 3.4 mm和2.0 +/- 0.9 mm。当分析每个病例的结果时，约束几何/强度配准表现最好，其次是特征PBR，最后是皮质血管轮廓配准。有趣的是，最佳目标配准误差类似于在刚性目标背景下使用骨植入标记报告的定位误差。这项研究的经验与其他研究一样，大脑移位可能会从最早阶段就影响颅外配准方法。根据本文报告的结果，基于器官的配准方法将改善这一点，特别是对于浅表病变。(c)2008年美国医学物理学家协会。
In this article a comprehensive set of registration methods is utilized to provide image-to-physical space registration for image-guided neurosurgery in a clinical study. Central to all methods is the use of textured point clouds as provided by laser range scanning technology. The objective is to perform a systematic comparison of registration methods that include both extracranial (skin marker point-based registration (PBR), and face-based surface registration) and intracranial methods (feature PBR, cortical vessel-contour registration, a combined geometry/intensity surface registration method, and a constrained form of that method to improve robustness). The platform facilitates the selection of discrete soft-tissue landmarks that appear on the patient's intraoperative cortical surface and the preoperative gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) image volume, i.e., true corresponding novel targets. In an 11 patient study, data were taken to allow statistical comparison among registration methods within the context of registration error. The results indicate that intraoperative face-based surface registration is statistically equivalent to traditional skin marker registration. The four intracranial registration methods were investigated and the results demonstrated a target registration error of 1.6 +/- 0.5 mm, 1.7 +/- 0.5 mm, 3.9 +/- 3.4 mm, and 2.0 +/- 0.9 mm, for feature PBR, cortical vessel-contour registration, unconstrained geometric/intensity registration, and constrained geometric/intensity registration, respectively. When analyzing the results on a per case basis, the constrained geometric/intensity registration performed best, followed by feature PBR, and finally cortical vessel-contour registration. Interestingly, the best target registration errors are similar to targeting errors reported using bone-implanted markers within the context of rigid targets. The experience in this study as with others is that brain shift can compromise extracranial registration methods from the earliest stages. Based on the results reported here, organ-based approaches to registration would improve this, especially for shallow lesions. (c) 2008 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.