Advertisement

Trackerless panoramic optoacoustic imaging: a first feasibility evaluation

  • Suhanyaa Nitkunanantharajah
  • Christoph Hennersperger
  • Xose Luis Dean-Ben
  • Daniel Razansky
  • Nassir Navab
Original Article
  • 156 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Optoacoustic imaging provides high spatial resolution and the possibility to image specific functional parameters in real-time, therefore positioning itself as a promising modality for various applications. However, despite these advantages, the applicability of real-time optoacoustic imaging is generally limited due to a relatively small field of view.

Methods

With this work, we aim at presenting a path towards panoramic optoacoustic tomographic imaging without requiring additional sensors or position trackers. We propose a two-step seamless stitching method for the compounding of multiple datasets acquired with a real-time 3D optoacoustic imaging system within a panoramic scan. The employed workflow is specifically tailored to the image properties and respective challenges.

Results

A comparison of the presented alignment on in-vivo data shows a mean error of \(628 \pm 512\,\upmu \hbox {m}\) compared to ground truth tracking data. The presented compounding scheme integrates the physical resolution of optoacoustic data and hence can provide improved contrast in comparison with other compounding approaches based on addition or averaging.

Conclusion

The proposed method can produce optoacoustic volumes with an enlarged field of view and improved quality compared to current methods in optoacoustic imaging. However, our study also shows challenges for panoramic scans. In this view, we discuss relevant properties, challenges, and opportunities and present an evaluation of the performance of the presented approach with different input data.

Keywords

Volume stitching Trackerless registration Volume compounding Photoacoustics Optoacoustic imaging 

Notes

Funding

This study did not receive funding from third party institutions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare to have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. No animal experiments were performed in this study. An informed consent was obtained from all participants.

References

  1. 1.
    Afsham N, Rasoulian A, Najafi M, Abolmaesumi P, Rohling R (2015) Nonlocal means filter-based speckle tracking. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 62(8):1501–1515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barry C, Allott C, John N, Mellor P, Arundel P, Thomson D, Waterton J (1997) Three-dimensional freehand ultrasound: image reconstruction and volume analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 23(8):1209–1224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beard P (2011) Biomedical photoacoustic imaging. Interface Focus 1:602–631CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) Method for registration of 3-d shapes. In: Sensor fusion IV: control paradigms and data structures, international society for optics and photonics, vol 1611, pp 586–607Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brecht HP, Su R, Fronheiser M, Ermilov SA, Conjusteau A, Oraevsky AA (2009) Whole-body three-dimensional optoacoustic tomography system for small animals. J Biomed Opt 14(6):064007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deán-Ben XL, Fehm TF, Razansky D (2014) Universal hand-held three-dimensional optoacoustic imaging probe for deep tissue human angiography and functional preclinical studies in real time. J Vis Exp JoVE 93:e51864–e51864Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deán-Ben XL, Ozbek A, Razansky D (2013) Volumetric real-time tracking of peripheral human vasculature with gpu-accelerated three-dimensional optoacoustic tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 32(11):2050–2055CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deán-Ben XL, Razansky D (2013) Functional optoacoustic human angiography with handheld video rate three dimensional scanner. Photoacoustics 1(3):68–73CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deán-Ben XL, Razansky D (2016) On the link between the speckle free nature of optoacoustics and visibility of structures in limited-view tomography. Photoacoustics 4(4):133–140CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fehm TF, Deán-Ben XL, Ford SJ, Razansky D (2016) In vivo whole-body optoacoustic scanner with real-time volumetric imaging capacity. Optica 3(11):1153–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frangi AF, Niessen WJ, Vincken KL, Viergever MA (1998) Multiscale vessel enhancement filtering. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted interventionGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gonzalez RC, Woods RE (2006) Digital image processing, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kruger RA, Kuzmiak CM, Lam RB, Reinecke DR, Del Rio SP, Steed D (2013) Dedicated 3D photoacoustic breast imaging. Med Phys 40(11):113301CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lutzweiler C, Razansky D (2013) Optoacoustic imaging and tomography: reconstruction approaches and outstanding challenges in image performance and quantification. Sensors 13(6):7345–7384CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller M, Helljesen LES, Prevost R, Viola I, Nylund K, Gilja OH, Navab N, Wein W (2014) Deriving anatomical context from 4D ultrasound. In: VCBM, pp 173–180Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prager RW, Gee AH, Treece GM, Cash CJ, Berman LH (2003) Sensorless freehand 3-d ultrasound using regression of the echo intensity. Ultrasound Med Biol 29(3):437–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prevost R, Salehi M, Sprung J, Bauer R, Wein W (2017) Deep learning for sensorless 3D freehand ultrasound imaging. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pp 628–636. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sato Y, Nakajima S, Atsumi H, Koller T, Gerig G, Yoshida S, Kikinis R (1997) 3D multi-scale line filter for segmentation and visualization of curvilinear structures in medical images. In: CVRMed-MRCAS’97Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shepard D (1968) A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly-spaced data. In: Proceedings of the 1968 23rd ACM national conference. ACMGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Solberg OV, Lindseth F, Torp H, Blake RE, Hernes TAN (2007) Freehand 3D ultrasound reconstruction algorithms: a review. Ultrasound Med Biol 33(7):991–1009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xia W, West SJ, Finlay MC, Mari JM, Ourselin S, David AL, Desjardins AE (2017) Looking beyond the imaging plane: 3d needle tracking with a linear array ultrasound probe. Sci Rep 7(1):3674CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Aided Medical ProceduresTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Biological and Medical ImagingHelmholtz Center MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Trinity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations