Multi-view Image Reconstruction: Application to Fetal Ultrasound Compounding
Ultrasound (US), a standard diagnostic tool to detect fetal abnormalities, is a direction dependent imaging modality, i.e. the position of the probe highly influences the appearance of the image. View-dependent artifacts such as shadows can obstruct parts of the anatomy of interest and degrade the quality and usefulness of the image. If multiple images of the same structure are acquired from different views, view-dependent artifacts can be minimized.
In this work, we propose a new US image reconstruction technique using multiple B-spline grids to enable multi-view US image compounding. The B-spline coefficients of different control point grids adapted to the geometry of the data are simultaneously optimized at every resolution level. Data points are weighted depending on their view, position and intensity. We demonstrate our method on the compounding of co-planar 2D fetal US images acquired from multiple views. Using quantitative and qualitative evaluation scores, we show that the proposed method outperforms other multi-view compounding methods.
This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust IEH Award . This work was also supported by the Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Medical Engineering [WT203148/Z/16/Z]. The research was also supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
- 2.Hennersperger, C., Baust, M., Mateus, D. Navab, N.: Computational sonography. In: Proceedings of MICCAI, pp. 459–466 (2015)Google Scholar
- 3.Banerjee, J., et al.: A log-Euclidean and total variation based variational framework for computational sonography. In: Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging, vol. 10574 (2018)Google Scholar
- 9.Pech-Pacheco, J.L., Cristobal, G., Chamorro-Martinez, J., Fernandez-Valdivia, J.: Diatom autofocusing in brightfield microscopy: a comparative study. Proc. ICPR 3, 314–317 (2000)Google Scholar