Advertisement

Complete Fetal Head Compounding from Multi-view 3D Ultrasound

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11766)

Abstract

Ultrasound (US) images suffer from artefacts which limit its diagnostic value, notably acoustic shadow. Shadows are dependent on probe orientation, with each view giving a distinct, partial view of the anatomy. In this work, we fuse the partially imaged fetal head anatomy, acquired from numerous views, into a single coherent compounding of the full anatomy. Firstly, a stream of freehand 3D US images is acquired, capturing as many different views as possible. The imaged anatomy at each time-point is then independently aligned to a canonical pose using an iterative spatial transformer network (iSTN), making our approach robust to fast fetal and probe motion. Secondly, images are fused by averaging only the best (most salient) features from all images, producing a more detailed compounding. Finally, the compounding is iteratively refined using a groupwise registration approach. We evaluate our compounding approach quantitatively and qualitatively, comparing it with average compounding and individual US frames. We also evaluate our alignment accuracy using two physically attached probes, that capture separate views simultaneously, providing ground-truth. Lastly, we demonstrate the potential clinical impact of our method for assessing cranial, facial and external ear abnormalities, with automated atlas-based masking and 3D volume rendering.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Medical Engineering [WT203148/Z/16/Z], Wellcome Trust IEH Award [102431] and NVIDIA with the donation of a Titan Xp GPU.

References

  1. 1.
    Perperidis, A., Cusack, D., White, A., McDicken, N., MacGillivray, T., Anderson, T.: Temporal compounding: a novel implementation and its impact on quality and diagnostic value in echocardiography. UMB 41(6), 1749–1765 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yao, C.: 3D echocardiography image compounding. Ph.D. thesis, King’s College London (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zimmer, V.A., et al.: Multi-view image reconstruction: application to fetal ultrasound compounding. In: Melbourne, A., et al. (eds.) PIPPI/DATRA -2018. LNCS, vol. 11076, pp. 107–116. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00807-9_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gomez, A., et al.: Fast registration of 3D fetal ultrasound images using learned corresponding salient points. In: Cardoso, M.J., et al. (eds.) FIFI/OMIA -2017. LNCS, vol. 10554, pp. 33–41. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67561-9_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Contreras Ortiz, S.H., Chiu, T., Fox, M.D.: Ultrasound image enhancement: a review. BSPC 7(5), 419–428 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khanal, B., et al.: EchoFusion: tracking and reconstruction of objects in 4D freehand ultrasound imaging without external trackers. In: Melbourne, A., et al. (eds.) PIPPI/DATRA -2018. LNCS, vol. 11076, pp. 117–127. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00807-9_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perez-Gonzalez, J., et al.: Spatial compounding of 3-D fetal brain ultrasound using probabilistic maps. UMB 44(1), 278–291 (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wright, R., et al.: LSTM spatial co-transformer networks for registration of 3D fetal US and MR brain images. In: Melbourne, A., et al. (eds.) PIPPI/DATRA -2018. LNCS, vol. 11076, pp. 149–159. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00807-9_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grau, V., Noble, J.A.: Adaptive multiscale ultrasound compounding using phase information. In: Duncan, J.S., Gerig, G. (eds.) MICCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3749, pp. 589–596. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11566465_73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, S., Kang, X., Hu, J.: Image fusion with guided filtering. TIP 22(7), 2864–2875 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burt, P., Adelson, E.: The laplacian pyramid as a compact image code. TCOM 31(4), 532–540 (1983)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vercauteren, T., Perchant, A., Pennec, X., Ayache, N.: Mosaicing of confocal microscopic In Vivo soft tissue video sequences. In: Duncan, J.S., Gerig, G. (eds.) MICCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3749, pp. 753–760. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11566465_93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Modat, M., Cash, D.M., Daga, P., Winston, G.P., Duncan, J.S., Ourselin, S.: Global image registration using a symmetric block-matching approach. JMI 1(2), 024003 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging SciencesKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Nepal Applied Mathematics and Informatics Institute for Research (NAAMII)SuryabinayakNepal

Personalised recommendations