Consistent reconstruction of 4D fetal heart ultrasound images to cope with fetal motion

  • Christine Tanner
  • Barbara Flach
  • Céline Eggenberger
  • Oliver Mattausch
  • Michael Bajka
  • Orcun Goksel
Original Article



4D ultrasound imaging of the fetal heart relies on reconstructions from B-mode images. In the presence of fetal motion, current approaches suffer from artifacts, which are unrecoverable for single sweeps.


We propose to use many sweeps and exploit the resulting redundancy to automatically recover from motion by reconstructing a 4D image which is consistent in phase, space, and time. An interactive visualization framework to view animated ultrasound slices from 4D reconstructions on arbitrary planes was developed using a magnetically tracked mock probe.


We first quantified the performance of 10 4D reconstruction formulations on simulated data. Reconstructions of 14 in vivo sequences by a baseline, the current state-of-the-art, and the proposed approach were then visually ranked with respect to temporal quality on orthogonal views. Rankings from 5 observers showed that the proposed 4D reconstruction approach significantly improves temporal image quality in comparison with the baseline. The 4D reconstructions of the baseline and the proposed methods were then inspected interactively for accessibility to clinically important views and rated for their clinical usefulness by an ultrasound specialist in obstetrics and gynecology. The reconstructions by the proposed method were rated as ‘very useful’ in 71% and were statistically significantly more useful than the baseline reconstructions.


Multi-sweep fetal heart ultrasound acquisitions in combination with consistent 4D image reconstruction improves quality as well as clinical usefulness of the resulting 4D images in the presence of fetal motion.


Ultrasound Fetal heart Reconstruction 



Funding wa provided by the Swiss Commission for Technology and Innovation (#16925 PFLS-LS) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (#150620).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the provincial ethics committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11548_2017_1624_MOESM1_ESM.gif (247 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (gif 246 KB)
11548_2017_1624_MOESM2_ESM.gif (75 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (gif 75 KB)
11548_2017_1624_MOESM3_ESM.gif (76 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (gif 75 KB)
11548_2017_1624_MOESM4_ESM.gif (75 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (gif 75 KB)
11548_2017_1624_MOESM5_ESM.gif (246 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (gif 246 KB)
11548_2017_1624_MOESM6_ESM.gif (247 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (gif 247 KB)


  1. 1.
    Carvalho J, Allan L, Chaoui R, Copel J, DeVore G, Hecher K, Lee W, Munoz H, Paladini D, Tutschek B, Yagel S (2013) ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): sonographic screening examination of the fetal heart. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41(3):348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cikes M, Tong L, Sutherland G, Dhooge J (2014) Ultrafast cardiac ultrasound imaging: technical principles, applications, and clinical benefits. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 7(8):812–823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen B, Dinstein I (2002) New maximum likelihood motion estimation schemes for noisy ultrasound images. Pattern Recognit 35(2):455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeVore G, Falkensammer P, Sklansky M, Platt L (2003) Spatio-temporal image correlation (STIC): new technology for evaluation of the fetal heart. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22(4):380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jansz M, Seed M, van Amerom J, Wong D, Grosse-Wortmann L, Yoo SJ, Macgowan C (2010) Metric optimized gating for fetal cardiac MRI. Magn Reson Med 64(5):1304–1314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kainz B, Alansary A, Malamateniou C, Keraudren K, Rutherford M, Hajnal JV, Rueckert D (2015) Flexible reconstruction and correction of unpredictable motion from stacks of 2D images. In: Navab N, Hornegger J, Wells W, Frangi A (eds) Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention—MICCAI 2015. MICCAI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9350. Springer, Cham, pp 555–562. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24571-3_66
  7. 7.
    Loizou C, Pattichis C, Christodoulou C, Istepanian R, Pantziaris M, Nicolaides A (2005) Comparative evaluation of despeckle filtering in ultrasound imaging of the carotid artery. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelect 52(10):1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loizou C, Theofanous C, Pantziaris M, Kasparis T (2014) Despeckle filtering software toolbox for ultrasound imaging of the common carotid artery. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 114(1):109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mattausch O, Goksel O, Orcun (2016) Monte-Carlo ray-tracing for realistic interactive ultrasound simulation. In: Bruckner, Preim B, Vilanova A, Hauser H, Hennemuth A, Lundervold A (eds), Eurographics workshop on visual computing for biology and medicine (vcbm.20161285), The Eurographics Association. doi: 10.2312/vcbm.20161285
  10. 10.
    Nelson T, Pretorius D, Sklansky M, Hagen-Ansert S (1996) Three-dimensional echocardiographic evaluation of fetal heart anatomy and function: acquisition, analysis, and display. J Ultrasound Med 15(1):1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Odille F, Bustin A, Chen B, Vuissoz PA, Felblinger J (2015) Motion-corrected, super-resolution reconstruction for high-resolution 3D cardiac cine MRI. In: Navab N, Hornegger J, Wells W, Frangi A (eds) Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention—MICCAI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9351. Springer, Cham, pp 435–442. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_52
  12. 12.
    Peterfi I, Kellenyi L, Szilagyi A (2014) Noninvasive recording of true-to-form fetal ECG during the third trimester of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Int 2014. Article ID 285636Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schoisswohl A, Falkensammer P (2005) Method and apparatus for obtaining a volumetric scan of a periodically moving object. US Patent 6,966,878Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tanner C, Flach B, Eggenberger C, Mattausch O, Bajka M, Goksel O (2016) 4D Reconstruction of fetal heart ultrasound images in presence of fetal motion. In: Ourselin S, Joskowicz L, Sabuncu M, Unal G, Wells W (eds) Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention—MICCAI 2016. MICCAI 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9900. Springer, Cham, pp 539–601. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46720-7_69
  15. 15.
    Tanter M, Fink M (2014) Ultrafast imaging in biomedical ultrasound. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelect 61(1):102–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Uittenbogaard L, Haak M, Spreeuwenberg M, Van Vugt J (2008) A systematic analysis of the feasibility of four-dimensional ultrasound imaging using spatiotemporal image correlation in routine fetal echocardiography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31(6):625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wachinger C, Yigitsoy M, Rijkhorst EJ, Navab N (2012) Manifold learning for image-based breathing gating in ultrasound and MRI. Med Image Anal 16(4):806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yagel S, Benachi A, Bonnet D, Dumez Y, Hochner-Celnikier D, Cohen S, Valsky D, Fermont L (2006) Rendering in fetal cardiac scanning: the intracardiac septa and the coronal atrioventricular valve planes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28(3):266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer-Assisted Applications in Medicine, Computer Vision LabETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Departments of Obstetrics and GynaecologyZurich University HospitalZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations