Slice-to-volume deformable registration: efficient one-shot consensus between plane selection and in-plane deformation

  • Enzo FerranteEmail author
  • Vivien Fecamp
  • Nikos Paragios
Original Article



This paper introduces a novel decomposed graphical model to deal with slice-to-volume registration in the context of medical images and image-guided surgeries.


We present a new non-rigid slice-to-volume registration method whose main contribution is the ability to decouple the plane selection and the in-plane deformation parts of the transformation—through two distinct graphs—toward reducing the complexity of the model while being able to obtain simultaneously the solution for both of them. To this end, the plane selection process is expressed as a local graph-labeling problem endowed with planarity satisfaction constraints, which is then directly linked with the deformable part through the data registration likelihoods. The resulting model is modular with respect to the image metric, can cope with arbitrary in-plane regularization terms and inherits excellent properties in terms of computational efficiency.


The proof of concept for the proposed formulation is done using cardiac MR sequences of a beating heart (an artificially generated 2D temporal sequence is extracted using real data with known ground truth) as well as multimodal brain images involving ultrasound and computed tomography images. We achieve state-of-the-art results while decreasing the computational time when we compare with another method based on similar techniques.


We confirm that graphical models and discrete optimization techniques are suitable to solve non-rigid slice-to-volume registration problems. Moreover, we show that decoupling the graphical model and labeling it using two lower-dimensional label spaces, we can achieve state-of-the-art results while substantially reducing the complexity of our method and moving the approach close to real clinical applications once considered in the context of modern parallel architectures.


Slice-to-volume registration 2D–3D registration Discrete optimization Graphical models Markov random fields 


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Baker S, Scharstein D, Lewis J, Roth S, Black MJ, Szeliski R (2011) A database and evaluation methodology for optical flow. Int J Computer Vision 92(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bardera A, Feixas M, Boada I, Sbert M (2006) High-dimensional normalized mutual information for image registration using random lines. In: Pluim J, Likar B, Gerritsen F (eds) Biomedical Image Registration, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4057, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 264–271Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birkfellner W, Figl M, Kettenbach J, Hummel J, Homolka P, Schernthaner R, Nau T, Bergmann H (2007) Rigid 2D/3D slice-to-volume registration and its application on fluoroscopic CT images. Med Phys 34(1):246. doi: 10.1118/1.2401661 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birkfellner W, Hummel J, Wilson E, Cleary K (2008) Tracking devices. In: Image-guided interventions, Springer, pp 23–44Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chandler AG, Pinder RJ, Netsch T, Schnabel JA, Hawkes DJ, Hill DL, Razavi R (2008) Correction of misaligned slices in multi-slice MR cardiac examinations by using slice-to-volume registration. J Cardiovas Magn Reson 10:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dalvi R, Abugharbieh R (2008) Fast feature based multi slice to volume registration using phase congruency. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2008. EMBS 2008. 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE, pp 5390–5393Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferrante E, Paragios N (2013) Non-rigid 2d–3d medical image registration using Markov random fields. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention-MICCAI 2013, Springer, pp 163–170Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fuerst B, Wein W, Muller M, Navab N (2014) Automatic ultrasound–MRI registration for neurosurgery using the 2d and 3d lc2 metric. Med Image Anal 18(8):1312–1319. Special Issue on the 2013 Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted InterventionGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geman S, Geman D (1984) Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images. Pattern Anal Mach Intell IEEE Trans 6:721–741Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gill S, Abolmaesumi P, Vikal S, Mousavi P, Fichtinger G (2008) Intraoperative prostate tracking with slice-to-volume registration in MRI. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the Society for Medical Innovation and Technology, pp 154–158Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glocker B, Sotiras A, Komodakis N, Paragios N (2011) Deformable medical image registration: setting the state of the art with discrete methods. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 13:219–244. doi: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071910-124649 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kappes JH, Andres B, Hamprecht FA, Schnörr C, Nowozin S, Batra D, Kim S, Kausler BX, Lellmann J, Komodakis N, Rother C (2013) A comparative study of modern inference techniques for discrete energy minimization problem In: CVPR 2013Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Komodakis N (2011) Efficient training for pairwise or higher order crfs via dual decomposition. In: CVPR, pp 1841–1848Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Komodakis N, Tziritas G, Paragios N (2007) Fast, approximately optimal solutions for single and dynamic mrfs. In: Computer vision and pattern recognition, 2007. CVPR’07. IEEE Conference on, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kotsas P, Dodd T (2011) A review of methods for 2d/3d registration. WASET Conference Paris, pp 14–16Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee K, Kwon D, Yun I, Lee S (2008) Deformable 3d volume registration using efficient mrfs model with decomposed nodes. In: British Machine Vision Conference, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mahapatra D, Sun Y (2008) Nonrigid registration of dynamic renal mr images using a saliency based mrf model. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention-MICCAI 2008, pp 771–779Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Markelj P, Tomaževič D, Likar B, Pernuš F (2012) A review of 3d/2d registration methods for image-guided interventions. Med Image Anal 16(3):642–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S (2013) Mri-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol 23(1):43CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mercier L, Del Maestro RF, Petrecca K, Araujo D, Haegelen C, Collins DL (2012) Online database of clinical mr and ultrasound images of brain tumors. Med Phys 39:3253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Osechinskiy S, Kruggel F (2010) Slice-to-volume nonrigid registration of histological sections to Mr images of the human brain. Anatomy Research International 2011. doi: 10.1155/2011/287860
  22. 22.
    Penney G, Blackall J, Hayashi D, Sabharwal T, Adam A, Hawkes D (2001) Overview of an ultrasound to ct or mr registration system for use in thermal ablation of liver metastases. In: Proceedings of Medical Image Understanding and Analysis, Citeseer, vol 1, p 6568Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    San José Estépar R, Westin C, Vosburgh K (2009) Towards real time 2d to 3d registration for ultrasound-guided endoscopic and laparoscopic procedures. Int J Computer Assist Radiol Surg 4(6):549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shekhovtsov A, Kovtun I, Hlaváč V (2008) Efficient mrf deformation model for non-rigid image matching. Computer Vision Image Underst 112(1):91–99. doi: 10.1016/j.cviu.2008.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu H, Lasso A, Fedorov A, Tuncali K, Tempany C, Fichtinger G (2014) Multi-slice-to-volume registration for mri-guided transperineal prostate biopsy. Int J Computer Assist Radiol Surg, pp 1–10 CARS. doi: 10.1007/s11548-014-1108-7
  26. 26.
    Zikic D, Glocker B, Kutter O, Groher M, Komodakis N, Kamen A, Paragios N, Navab N (2010) Linear intensity-based image registration by Markov random fields and discrete optimization. Med Image Anal 14(4):550–562. doi: 10.1016/ CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Visual Computing (CVN)CentraleSupelec – Galen Team, INRIAChatenay-MalabryFrance

Personalised recommendations