Endovascular image-guided navigation - validation of two volume-volume registration algorithms

• Published in: Minimally invasive therapy and allied technologies 2011-09, Vol.20 (5), p.282-289
• Main Authors: Manstad-Hulaas, Frode, Tangen, Geir Arne, Demirci, Stefanie, Pfister, Marcus, Lydersen, Stian, Nagelhus Hernes, Toril A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Algorithms; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery; Computer-assisted image processing; computer-assisted three-dimensional imaging; dynaCT; Endovascular Procedures - methods; endovascular therapy; Humans; image registration; image-guided surgery; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods; interventional radiography; intraoperative imaging; minimally invasive surgical procedures; Monitoring, Intraoperative - methods; Postoperative Care - methods; Preoperative Care - methods; Retrospective Studies; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
• ISSN: 1364-5706; 1365-2931
• DOI: 10.3109/13645706.2010.536244

Abstract The limited volume covered by intraoperatively acquired CT scans makes the use of navigation systems difficult. Preoperative images cover a larger volume of interest. Hence, reliable registration of high quality preoperative to intraoperative CT will provide the necessary image information required for navigation. This study evaluates two algorithms (Siemens, CAMP) for volume-volume registration for usage during endovascular navigation. Twenty patients treated for abdominal aortic aneurysm were scanned with pre-, intra- and postoperative CT. Six data sets were excluded due to variations in image acquisition parameters and severe artifacts. Fourteen intra- and postoperative datasets were registered ten times with both algorithms, altogether 140 registrations for each program. In all data sets five specified landmarks placed by two radiologists were used to evaluate registration accuracy. The distance between the paired landmarks in the registered intra- and postoperative volumes was measured and the root mean square value calculated. Reference registrations were based on rigid body registration of the five landmarks in the intra- and postoperative volumes. Registration accuracy (mean ± SD) was for Siemens 5.05 ± 4.74 mm, for CAMP 4.02 ± 1.52 mm and for the reference registrations 2.72 ± 1.18 mm. The registration algorithms differed significantly, p < 0.001.