Back to Search
Start Over
Accuracy of registration techniques and vascular imaging modalities in fusion imaging for aortic endovascular interventions: a phantom study.
Accuracy of registration techniques and vascular imaging modalities in fusion imaging for aortic endovascular interventions: a phantom study.
- Source :
- CVIR Endovascular; 6/14/2021, Vol. 4 Issue 1, p1-10, 10p
- Publication Year :
- 2021
-
Abstract
- Background: 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. Materials and methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 25208934
- Volume :
- 4
- Issue :
- 1
- Database :
- Complementary Index
- Journal :
- CVIR Endovascular
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 150893345
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-021-00234-6