Advertisement

Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing

, Volume 44, Issue 12, pp 1127–1134 | Cite as

Interventional navigation for abdominal therapy based on simultaneous use of MRI and ultrasound

  • J. Hong
  • H. Nakashima
  • K. Konishi
  • S. Ieiri
  • K. Tanoue
  • M. Nakamuta
  • M. Hashizume
Technical Note

Abstract

An interventional navigation system designed for percutaneous abdominal therapies was proposed, and a pilot study was carried out to assess the proposed system. Integration of US to MRI-based segmentation and 3D display of tumours can help physicians deal with instabilities such as respiratory motion and soft tissue shift that are inherent in abdominal interventions. In addition to the 3D display of the needle and tumours, we adapted the system for the abdominal applications and incorporated a process to correct the mismatch in needle path between MRI and US. The preliminary results of phantom and animal experiments indicated that the proposed method could combine the advantages of both MRI and US. The time required to determine the optimal needle insertion path by using this system was significantly less than that required when either US or MRI guidance alone was employed. The developed system was applied in two patients who underwent PEIT therapy, and its clinical feasibility was partially confirmed.

Keywords

Interventional navigation Image-guided surgery Integration of MRI with US Percutaneous abdominal therapy 

References

  1. 1.
    Schulz T, Puccini S, Schneider J-P, Kahn T (2004) Interventional and intraoperative MR: review and update of techniques and clinical experience. Eur Radiol 14:2212–2227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vannier MW, Haller JW (1999) Navigation in diagnosis and therapy. Eur J Radiol 31:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beppu T, Doi K, Ishiko T, Ogawa M (2003) Local ablation therapy. Consensus of cancer therapy 2003(Summer):144–148Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pagoulatos N, Edwards WS, Haynor DR, Kim Y (1999) Interactive 3-D registration of ultrasound and magnetic resonance images based on a magnetic position sensor. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 3(4):278–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tronnier VM, Bonsanto MM, Staubert A, Knauth M, Kunze S, Wirtz CR (2001) Comparison of intraoperative MR imaging and 3D-navigated ultrasonography in the detection and resection control of lesions. Neurosurg Focus 10(2):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slomka PJ, Mandel J, Downey D, Fenster A (2001) Evaluation of voxel-based registration of 3-D power Doppler ultrasound and 3-D magnetic resonance angiographic images of carotid arteries. Ultrasound Med Biol 27(7):945–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lange T, Eulenstein S, Hunerbein M, Schlag PM (2003) Vessel-based non-rigid registration of MR/CT and 3D ultrasound for navigation in liver surgery. Comput Aided Surg 8(5):228–240Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grenacher L, Thorn M, Knaebel HP, Vetter M, Hassenpflug P, Kraus T, Meinzer HP, Buchler MW, Kauffmann GW, Richter GM (2005) The role of 3-D imaging and computer-based postprocessing for surgery of the liver and pancreas. Rofo 177(9):1219–1226Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonsanto MM, Staubert A, Wirtz1 CR, Tronnier V, Kunze S (2001) Initial experience with an ultrasound-integrated single-rack neuronavigation system. Acta Neurochir 143:1127–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Comeaua RM, Sadikot AF, Fenster A, Peters TM (2000) Intraoperative ultrasound for guidance and tissue shift correction in image-guided neurosurgery. Med Phys 27(4):787–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gobbi DG, Comeau RM, Peters TM (2000) Ultrasound/MRI overlay with image warping for neurosurgery. LNCS 1935:106–114Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lorusso A, Eggert DW, Fisher RB (1995) A comparison of four algorithms for estimating 3D rigid transformations. Br Machine Vis Conf 237–246Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu H, Yu Y, Schell MC, O’Dell WG, Ruo R, Okunieff P (2003) Optimal marker placement in photogrammetry patient positioning system. Med Phys 30(2):103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rose SC, Nelson TR, Deutsch R (2004) Display of 3-D ultrasonographic images for interventional procedures volume-rendered versus multiplanar display. J Ultrasound Med 23:1465–1473Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chau A, Gopal A, Mao S, Tseng PH, Fischer H, Budoff MJ (2006) Comparison of three generations of electron beam tomography on image noise and reproducibility, a phantom study. Invest Radiol 41(6):522–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Hong
    • 1
  • H. Nakashima
    • 2
  • K. Konishi
    • 2
  • S. Ieiri
    • 3
  • K. Tanoue
    • 3
  • M. Nakamuta
    • 4
  • M. Hashizume
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Nanobiomedicine, Faculty of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Innovative Medical Technology, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Advanced Medicine and Innovative TechnologyKyushu University HospitalFukuokaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Medicine and Bioregulatory Science, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations