Accuracy of registration techniques and vascular imaging modalities in fusion imaging for aortic endovascular interventions: a phantom study

CVIR Endovascular

article

Sieren, M. M.¹  Goltz, J.²  Schareck, C.¹  Kaschwich, M.³  Horn, M.³  Matysiak, F.³  Stahlberg, E.¹  Wegner, F.¹  Oechtering, T. H.¹  Barkhausen, J.¹ 

[1] Department for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein;Department for Radiology and Neuroradiology, Sana Hospital;Department for Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein

关键词: Fusion imaging;    Anthropomorphic body phantom;    Registration accuracy;    2D-3D registration;    3D-3D registration;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s42155-021-00234-6

学科分类：计算机科学（综合）

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

This study aimed to assess the error of different registration techniques and imaging modalities for fusion imaging of the aorta in a standardized setting using a anthropomorphic body phantom. A phantom with the 3D printed vasculature of a patient suffering from an infrarenal aortic aneurysm was constructed. Pulsatile flow was generated via an external pump. CTA/MRA of the phantom was performed, and a virtual 3D vascular model was computed. Subsequently, fusion imaging was performed employing 3D-3D and 2D-3D registration techniques. Accuracy of the registration was evaluated from 7 right/left anterior oblique c-arm angulations using the agreement of centerlines and landmarks between the phantom vessels and the virtual 3D virtual vascular model. Differences between imaging modalities were assessed in a head-to-head comparison based on centerline deviation. Statistics included the comparison of means ± standard deviations, student’s t-test, Bland-Altman analysis, and intraclass correlation coefficient for intra- and inter-reader analysis. 3D-3D registration was superior to 2D-3D registration, with the highest mean centerline deviation being 1.67 ± 0.24 mm compared to 4.47 ± 0.92 mm. The highest absolute deviation was 3.25 mm for 3D-3D and 6.25 mm for 2D-3D registration. Differences for all angulations between registration techniques reached statistical significance. A decrease in registration accuracy was observed for c-arm angulations beyond 30° right anterior oblique/left anterior oblique. All landmarks (100%) were correctly positioned using 3D-3D registration compared to 81% using 2D-3D registration. Differences in accuracy between CT and MRI were acceptably small. Intra- and inter-reader reliability was excellent. In the realm of registration techniques, the 3D-3D method proved more accurate than did the 2D-3D method. Based on our data, the use of 2D-3D registration for interventions with high registration quality requirements (e.g., fenestrated aortic repair procedures) cannot be fully recommended. Regarding imaging modalities, CTA and MRA can be used equivalently.

【 授权许可】

CC BY