PURE: Panoramic Ultrasound Reconstruction by Seamless Stitching of Volumes

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9968)

Abstract

For training sonographers in navigating, acquiring, and interpreting ultrasound images, virtual-reality based simulation offers a safe, flexible, and standardized environment. In data-based training simulations, images from a-priori acquired volumes are displayed to the trainee. To understand the relationship between organs, it is necessary to allow for free exploration of the entire anatomy, which is often not possible with the limited field-of-view (FOV) of a single ultrasound volume. Thus, large FOV ultrasound volumes are of paramount importance. Combining several volumes into one larger volume has also potential utility in many other applications, such as diagnostic and operative guidance. In this work, we propose a method for combining several ultrasound volumes with tracked positions into a single large volume by stitching them in a seamless fashion. For stitching, we determine an optimal cut interface such that each pixel value comes from a single image; preserving the inherent speckle texture and preventing any blurring and degradation from common mean/median binning approaches to combining volumes. The cut interface is found based on image content using graphical models optimized by graph-cut. We show that our method produces panoramic reconstructions with seamless transitions between individual 3D acquisitions. Regarding standard deviation in homogeneous regions we get 1–19% loss of ultrasound texture compared to small 3D volumes while mean value interpolation gives a loss of 15–68%. The histograms of our reconstruction match the original histograms of the small 3D volumes almost perfectly with a \(\chi ^2\)-distance of less than 0.01.

References

  1. 1.
    Aiger, D., Cohen-Or, D.: Real-time ultrasound imaging simulation. Real-Time Imaging 4(4), 263–274 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boykov, Y., Kolmogorov, V.: An experimental comparison of min-cut/max-flow algorithms for energy minimization in vision. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 26(9), 1124–1137 (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dyer, E., Zeeshan Ijaz, U., Housden, R., Prager, R., Gee, A., Treece, G.: A clinical system for three-dimensional extended-field-of-view ultrasound. Br. J. Radiol. 85(1018), e919–e924 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehricke, H.: SONOSim3D: a multimedia system for sonography simulation and education with an extensible case database. Eur. J. Ultrasound 7(3), 225–300 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flach, B., Makhinya, M., Goksel, O.: Model-based compensation of tissue deformation during data acquisition for interpolative ultrasound simulation. Proc. ISBI 2016, 502–505 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gee, A., Treece, G., Prager, R., Cash, C., Berman, L.: Rapid registration for wide field of view freehand three-dimensional ultrasound. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 22(11), 1344–1357 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goksel, O., Salcudean, S.E.: B-mode ultrasound image simulation in deformable 3-D medium. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 28(11), 1657–1669 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henry, D., Troccaz, J., Bosson, J., Pichot, O.: Ultrasound imaging simulation: application to the diagnosis of deep venous thromboses of lower limbs. Med. Image Comput. Comput. Assist. Interv. 1496, 1032–1040 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kwatra, V., Schödl, A., Essa, I., Turk, G., Bobick, A.: Graphcut textures: image and video synthesis using graph cuts. Proc. SIGGRAPH 2003 22(3), 277–286 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lasso, A., Heffter, T., Rankin, A., Pinter, C., Ungi, T., Fichtinger, G.: PLUS: open-source toolkit for ultrasound-guided intervention systems. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 61(10), 2527–2537 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maul, H., Scharf, A., Baier, P., Wüstemann, M., Günter, H., Gebauer, G., Sohn, C.: Ultrasound simulators: experience with the SonoTrainer and comparative review of other training systems. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 24(5), 581–585 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ni, D., Chui, Y., Qu, Y., Yang, X., Qin, J., Wong, T.T., Ho, S., Heng, P.: Reconstructio of volumetric ultrasound panorama based on improved 3D SIFT. Comput. Med. Imaging Graph. 33(7), 559–566 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ozkan, E., Goksel, O.: Compliance boundary conditions for simulating deformations in a limited target region. Proc. EMBC 2015, 929–932 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poon, T., Rohling, R.: Three-dimensional extended field-of-view ultrasound. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 32(3), 357–369 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Solberg, O., Lindseth, F., Torp, H., Blake, R., Nagelhus Hernes, T.: Freehand 3D ultrasound reconstruction algorithm - a review. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 33(7), 991–1009 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wachinger, C., Wein, W., Navab, N.: Three-dimensional ultrasound mosaicing. Med. Image Comput. Comput. Assist. Interv. 10(Part II), 327–335 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer-Assisted Applications in MedicineETH ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations