EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

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



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



Journal of Neurosurgery 106(6): 1012-1016



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.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 013642003

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 17564173

DOI: 10.3171/jns.2007.106.6.1012



Related references

The application accuracy of different registration methods in frameless image-guided surgery. Lemke, Heinz U [Author], Inamura, Kiyonari [Author], Doi, Kunio [Author], Vannier, Michael W [Author], Farman, Allan G [Author] International Congress Series CARS : Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 987, 2000

Localization and registration accuracy in image guided neurosurgery: a clinical study. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 4(1): 45-52, 2010

A new robust markerless method for automatic image-to-patient registration in image-guided neurosurgery system. Computer Assisted Surgery 22(Sup1): 319-325, 2017

Mutual-information-based image to patient re-registration using intraoperative ultrasound in image-guided neurosurgery. Medical Physics 35(10): 4612-4624, 2008

Accuracy analysis of line-based registration for image guided neurosurgery at different operating areas - a phantom study. Computer Assisted Surgery 22(Sup1): 148-156, 2017

High-accuracy patient-to-image registration for the facilitation of image-guided robotic microsurgery on the head. IEEE Transactions on Bio-Medical Engineering 60(4): 960-968, 2013

An automatic six-degree-of-freedom image registration algorithm for image-guided frameless stereotaxic radiosurgery. Medical Physics 24(6): 857-866, 1997

Comparison of various image guided radiation therapy systems; image-guided localization accuracy and patient throughput. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 68(10): 1327-1332, 2013

Comparison of the accuracy of invasive and noninvasive registration methods for image-guided oral implant surgery. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 25(3): 491-498, 2010

Quantification of true in vivo (application) accuracy in cranial image-guided surgery: influence of mode of patient registration. Neurosurgery 59(1 Suppl 1): Ons146-56; Discussion Ons146-56, 2006

Improving target registration accuracy in image-guided neurosurgery by optimizing the distribution of fiducial points. International Journal of Medical Robotics + Computer Assisted Surgery 5(1): 26-31, 2009

Stereovision to MR image registration for cortical surface displacement mapping to enhance image-guided neurosurgery. Medical Physics 41(10): 102302-102302, 2015

Multimodal image re-registration via mutual information to account for initial tissue motion during image-guided neurosurgery. Conference Proceedings 3: 1675-1678, 2007

Automated Fiducial Marker Detection for Patient Registration in Image-Guided Neurosurgery. Computer Aided Surgery 8(1): 17-23, 2003

Automated fiducial marker detection for patient registration in image-guided neurosurgery. Computer Aided Surgery 8(1): 17-23, 2004