A 3D ultrasound scanning system for image guided liver interventions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: Two-dimensional ultrasound (2D US) imaging is commonly used for diagnostic and intraoperative guidance of interventional liver procedures; however, 2D US lacks volumetric information that may benefit interventional procedures. Over the past decade, three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US) has been developed to provide the missing spatial information. 3D US image acquisition is mainly based on mechanical, electromagnetic, and freehand tracking of conventional 2D US transducers, or 2D array transducers available on high-end machines. These approaches share many problems during clinical use for interventional liver imaging due to lack of flexibility and compatibility with interventional equipment, limited field-of-view (FOV), and significant capital cost compared to the benefits they introduce. In this paper, a novel system for mechanical 3D US scanning is introduced to address these issues. METHODS: The authors have developed a handheld mechanical 3D US system that incorporates mechanical translation and tilt sector sweeping of any standard 2D US transducer to acquire 3D images. Each mechanical scanning function can be operated independently or may be combined to allow for a hybrid wide FOV acquisition. The hybrid motion mode facilitates registration of other modalities (e.g., CT or MRI) to the intraoperative 3D US images by providing a larger FOV in which to acquire anatomical information. The tilting mechanism of the developed mover allows image acquisition in the intercostal rib space to avoid acoustic shadowing from bone. The geometric and volumetric scanning validity of the 3D US system was evaluated on tissue mimicking US phantoms for different modes of operation. Identical experiments were performed on a commercially available 3D US system for direct comparison. To replicate a clinical scenario, the authors evaluated their 3D US system by comparing it to CT for measurement of angle and distance between interventional needles in different configurations, similar to those used for percutaneous ablation of liver tumors. RESULTS: The mean geometrical hybrid 3D reconstruction error measured from scanning of a known string phantom was less than 1 mm in two directions and 2.5 mm in the scanning direction, which was comparable or better than the same measurements obtained from a commercially available 3D US system. The error in volume measurements of spherical phantom models depended on depth of the object. For a 20 cm(3) model at a depth of 15 cm, a standard depth for liver imaging, the mean error was 3.6% ± 4.5% comparable to the 2.3% ± 1.8% error for the 3D US commercial system. The error in 3D US measurement of the tip distance and angle between two microwave ablation antennas inserted into the phantom was 0.9 ± 0.5 mm and 1.1° ± 0.7°, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A 3D US system with hybrid scanning motions for large field-of-view 3D abdominal imaging has been developed and validated. The superior spatial information provided by 3D US might enhance image-guidance for percutaneous interventional treatment of liver malignancies. The system has potential to be integrated with other liver procedures and has application in other abdominal organs such as kidneys, spleen, or adrenals.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».