Cargando…

Comparison of image quality of 3D ultrasound: motorized acquisition versus freehand navigated acquisition, a phantom study

PURPOSE: Intra-operative assessment of resection margins during oncological surgery is a field that needs improvement. Ultrasound (US) shows the potential to fulfill this need, but this imaging technique is highly operator-dependent. A 3D US image of the whole specimen may remedy the operator depend...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bekedam, N. M., Karssemakers, L. H. E., van Alphen, M. J. A., van Veen, R. L. P., Smeele, L. E., Karakullukcu, M. B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10491552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37243918
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02934-x
_version_ 1785104082087706624
author Bekedam, N. M.
Karssemakers, L. H. E.
van Alphen, M. J. A.
van Veen, R. L. P.
Smeele, L. E.
Karakullukcu, M. B.
author_facet Bekedam, N. M.
Karssemakers, L. H. E.
van Alphen, M. J. A.
van Veen, R. L. P.
Smeele, L. E.
Karakullukcu, M. B.
author_sort Bekedam, N. M.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Intra-operative assessment of resection margins during oncological surgery is a field that needs improvement. Ultrasound (US) shows the potential to fulfill this need, but this imaging technique is highly operator-dependent. A 3D US image of the whole specimen may remedy the operator dependence. This study aims to compare and evaluate the image quality of 3D US between freehand acquisition (FA) and motorized acquisition (MA). METHODS: Multiple 3D US volumes of a commercial phantom were acquired in motorized and freehand fashion. FA images were collected with electromagnetic navigation. An integrated algorithm reconstructed the FA images. MA images were stacked into a 3D volume. The image quality is evaluated following the metrics: contrast resolution, axial and elevation resolution, axial and elevation distance calibration, stability, inter-operator variability, and intra-operator variability. A linear mixed model determined statistical differences between FA and MA for these metrics. RESULTS: The MA results in a statistically significant lower error of axial distance calibration (p < 0.0001) and higher stability (p < 0.0001) than FA. On the other hand, the FA has a better elevation resolution (p < 0.003) than the MA. CONCLUSION: MA results in better image quality of 3D US than the FA method based on axial distance calibration, stability, and variability. This study suggests acquiring 3D US volumes for intra-operative ex vivo margin assessment in a motorized fashion.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10491552
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104915522023-09-10 Comparison of image quality of 3D ultrasound: motorized acquisition versus freehand navigated acquisition, a phantom study Bekedam, N. M. Karssemakers, L. H. E. van Alphen, M. J. A. van Veen, R. L. P. Smeele, L. E. Karakullukcu, M. B. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Original Article PURPOSE: Intra-operative assessment of resection margins during oncological surgery is a field that needs improvement. Ultrasound (US) shows the potential to fulfill this need, but this imaging technique is highly operator-dependent. A 3D US image of the whole specimen may remedy the operator dependence. This study aims to compare and evaluate the image quality of 3D US between freehand acquisition (FA) and motorized acquisition (MA). METHODS: Multiple 3D US volumes of a commercial phantom were acquired in motorized and freehand fashion. FA images were collected with electromagnetic navigation. An integrated algorithm reconstructed the FA images. MA images were stacked into a 3D volume. The image quality is evaluated following the metrics: contrast resolution, axial and elevation resolution, axial and elevation distance calibration, stability, inter-operator variability, and intra-operator variability. A linear mixed model determined statistical differences between FA and MA for these metrics. RESULTS: The MA results in a statistically significant lower error of axial distance calibration (p < 0.0001) and higher stability (p < 0.0001) than FA. On the other hand, the FA has a better elevation resolution (p < 0.003) than the MA. CONCLUSION: MA results in better image quality of 3D US than the FA method based on axial distance calibration, stability, and variability. This study suggests acquiring 3D US volumes for intra-operative ex vivo margin assessment in a motorized fashion. Springer International Publishing 2023-05-27 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10491552/ /pubmed/37243918 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02934-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Bekedam, N. M.
Karssemakers, L. H. E.
van Alphen, M. J. A.
van Veen, R. L. P.
Smeele, L. E.
Karakullukcu, M. B.
Comparison of image quality of 3D ultrasound: motorized acquisition versus freehand navigated acquisition, a phantom study
title Comparison of image quality of 3D ultrasound: motorized acquisition versus freehand navigated acquisition, a phantom study
title_full Comparison of image quality of 3D ultrasound: motorized acquisition versus freehand navigated acquisition, a phantom study
title_fullStr Comparison of image quality of 3D ultrasound: motorized acquisition versus freehand navigated acquisition, a phantom study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of image quality of 3D ultrasound: motorized acquisition versus freehand navigated acquisition, a phantom study
title_short Comparison of image quality of 3D ultrasound: motorized acquisition versus freehand navigated acquisition, a phantom study
title_sort comparison of image quality of 3d ultrasound: motorized acquisition versus freehand navigated acquisition, a phantom study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10491552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37243918
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02934-x
work_keys_str_mv AT bekedamnm comparisonofimagequalityof3dultrasoundmotorizedacquisitionversusfreehandnavigatedacquisitionaphantomstudy
AT karssemakerslhe comparisonofimagequalityof3dultrasoundmotorizedacquisitionversusfreehandnavigatedacquisitionaphantomstudy
AT vanalphenmja comparisonofimagequalityof3dultrasoundmotorizedacquisitionversusfreehandnavigatedacquisitionaphantomstudy
AT vanveenrlp comparisonofimagequalityof3dultrasoundmotorizedacquisitionversusfreehandnavigatedacquisitionaphantomstudy
AT smeelele comparisonofimagequalityof3dultrasoundmotorizedacquisitionversusfreehandnavigatedacquisitionaphantomstudy
AT karakullukcumb comparisonofimagequalityof3dultrasoundmotorizedacquisitionversusfreehandnavigatedacquisitionaphantomstudy