Novel Geometries for Stereotactic Localizers

Introduction: The N-localizer is generally utilized in a 3-panel or, more rarely, a 4-panel system for computing stereotactic positions. However, a stereotactic frame that incorporates a 2-panel (bipanel) N-localizer system with panels affixed to only the left and right sides of the frame offers several advantages: improved ergonomics to attach the panels, reduced claustrophobia for the patient, mitigation of posterior panel contact with imaging systems, and reduced complexity. A bipanel system that comprises two standard N-localizer panels yields only two three-dimensional (3D) coordinates, which are insufficient to solve for the stereotactic matrix without further information. While additional information to determine the stereotactic positions could include scalar distances from Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) metadata or 3D regression across the imaging volume, both have risks related to noise and error propagation. Therefore, we sought to develop new stereotactic localizers that comprise only lateral fiducials (bipanel) that leave the front and back regions of the patient accessible but that contain enough information to solve for the stereotactic matrix using each image independently. Methods: To solve the stereotactic matrix, we assumed the need to compute three or more 3D points from a single image. Several localizer options were studied using Monte Carlo simulations to understand the effect of errors on the computed target location. The simulations included millions of possible combinations for computing the stereotactic matrix in the presence of random errors of 1mm magnitude. The matrix then transformed coordinates for a target that was placed 50mm anterior, 50mm posterior, 50mm lateral, or 50mm anterior and 50mm lateral to the centre of the image. Simulated cross-sectional axial images of the novel localizer systems were created and converted into DICOM images representing computed tomography (CT) images. Results: Three novel models include the M-localizer, F-localizer, and Z-localizer. For each of these localizer systems, optimized results were obtained using an overdetermined system of equations made possible by more than three diagonal bars. In each case, the diagonal bar position was computed using standard N-localizer mathematics. Additionally, the M-localizer allowed adding a computation using the Sturm-Pastyr method. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated that the Z-localizer provided optimal results. Conclusion: The three proposed novel models meet our design objectives. Of the three, the Z-localizer produced the least propagation of error. The M-localizer was simpler and had slightly more error than the Z-localizer. The F-localizer produced more error than either the Z-localizer or M-localizer. Further study is needed to determine optimizations using these novel models.