Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Target error for image-to-physical space registration: preliminary clinical results using laser range scanning
Author(s): Aize Cao; Michael I. Miga; P. Dumpuri; S. Ding; B. M. Dawant; R. C. Thompson
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00

Paper Abstract

In this paper, preliminary results from an image-to-physical space registration platform are presented. The current platform employs traditional and novel methods of registration which use a variety of data sources to include: traditional synthetic skin-fiducial point-based registration, surface registration based on facial contours, brain feature point-based registration, brain vessel-to-vessel registration, and a more comprehensive cortical surface registration method that utilizes both geometric and intensity information from both the image volume and physical patient. The intraoperative face and cortical surfaces were digitized using a laser range scanner (LRS) capable of producing highly resolved textured point clouds. In two in vivo cases, a series of registrations were performed using these techniques and compared within the context of a true target error. One of the advantages of using a textured point cloud data stream is that true targets among the physical cortical surface and the preoperative image volume can be identified and used to assess image-to-physical registration methods. The results suggest that iterative closest point (ICP) method for intraoperative face surface registration is equivalent to point-based registration (PBR) method of skin fiducial markers. With regard to the initial image and physical space registration, for patient 1, mean target registration error (TRE) were 3.1±0.4 mm and 3.6 ±0.9 mm for face ICP and skin fiducial PBR, respectively. For patient 2, the mean TRE were 5.7 ±1.3 mm, and 6.6 ±0.9 mm for face ICP and skin fiducial PBR, respectively. With regard to intraoperative cortical surface registration, SurfaceMI outperformed feature based PBR and vessel ICP with 1.7±1.8 mm for patient 1. For patient 2, the best result was achieved by using vessel ICP with 1.9±0.5 mm.

Paper Details

Date Published: 22 March 2007
PDF: 12 pages
Proc. SPIE 6509, Medical Imaging 2007: Visualization and Image-Guided Procedures, 65091D (22 March 2007); doi: 10.1117/12.711496
Show Author Affiliations
Aize Cao, Vanderbilt Univ. (United States)
Michael I. Miga, Vanderbilt Univ. (United States)
Vanderbilt Univ. Medical Ctr. (United States)
P. Dumpuri, Vanderbilt Univ. (United States)
S. Ding, Vanderbilt Univ. (United States)
B. M. Dawant, Vanderbilt Univ. (United States)
Vanderbilt Univ. Medical Ctr. (United States)
R. C. Thompson, Vanderbilt Univ. Medical Ctr. (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 6509:
Medical Imaging 2007: Visualization and Image-Guided Procedures
Kevin R. Cleary; Michael I. Miga, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top