Automatic image fusion of real-time ultrasound with computed tomography images: a prospective comparison between two auto-registration methods.

Background A major drawback of conventional manual image fusion is that the process may be complex, especially for less-experienced operators. Recently, two automatic image fusion techniques called Positioning and Sweeping auto-registration have been developed. Purpose To compare the accuracy and required time for image fusion of real-time ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) images between Positioning and Sweeping auto-registration. Material and Methods Eighteen consecutive patients referred for planning US for radiofrequency ablation or biopsy for focal hepatic lesions were enrolled. Image fusion using both auto-registration methods was performed for each patient. Registration error, time required for image fusion, and number of point locks used were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results Image fusion was successful in all patients. Positioning auto-registration was significantly faster than Sweeping auto-registration for both initial (median, 11 s [range, 3-16 s] vs. 32 s [range, 21-38 s]; P < 0.001] and complete (median, 34.0 s [range, 26-66 s] vs. 47.5 s [range, 32-90]; P = 0.001] image fusion. Registration error of Positioning auto-registration was significantly higher for initial image fusion (median, 38.8 mm [range, 16.0-84.6 mm] vs. 18.2 mm [6.7-73.4 mm]; P = 0.029), but not for complete image fusion (median, 4.75 mm [range, 1.7-9.9 mm] vs. 5.8 mm [range, 2.0-13.0 mm]; P = 0.338]. Number of point locks required to refine the initially fused images was significantly higher with Positioning auto-registration (median, 2 [range, 2-3] vs. 1 [range, 1-2]; P = 0.012]. Conclusion Positioning auto-registration offers faster image fusion between real-time US and pre-procedural CT images than Sweeping auto-registration. The final registration error is similar between the two methods.

A prospective comparison between auto-registration and manual registration of real-time ultrasound with MR images for percutaneous ablation or biopsy of hepatic lesions.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and required time for image fusion of real-time ultrasound (US) with pre-procedural magnetic resonance (MR) images between positioning auto-registration and manual registration for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation or biopsy of hepatic lesions. METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and all patients gave written informed consent. Twenty-two patients (male/female, n = 18/n = 4; age, 61.0 ± 7.7 years) who were referred for planning US to assess the feasibility of radiofrequency ablation (n = 21) or biopsy (n = 1) for focal hepatic lesions were included. One experienced radiologist performed the two types of image fusion methods in each patient. The performance of auto-registration and manual registration was evaluated. The accuracy of the two methods, based on measuring registration error, and the time required for image fusion for both methods were recorded using in-house software and respectively compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Image fusion was successful in all patients. The registration error was not significantly different between the two methods (auto-registration: median, 3.75 mm; range, 1.0-15.8 mm vs. manual registration: median, 2.95 mm; range, 1.2-12.5 mm, p = 0.242). The time required for image fusion was significantly shorter with auto-registration than with manual registration (median, 28.5 s; range, 18-47 s, vs. median, 36.5 s; range, 14-105 s, p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Positioning auto-registration showed promising results compared with manual registration, with similar accuracy and even shorter registration time.

Automatic Registration between Real-Time Ultrasonography and Pre-Procedural Magnetic Resonance Images: A Prospective Comparison between Two Registration Methods by Liver Surface and Vessel and by Liver Surface Only.

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of and the time required for image fusion between real-time ultrasonography (US) and pre-procedural magnetic resonance (MR) images using automatic registration by a liver surface only method and automatic registration by a liver surface and vessel method. This study consisted of 20 patients referred for planning US to assess the feasibility of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation or biopsy for focal hepatic lesions. The first 10 consecutive patients were evaluated by an experienced radiologist using the automatic registration by liver surface and vessel method, whereas the remaining 10 patients were evaluated using the automatic registration by liver surface only method. For all 20 patients, image fusion was automatically executed after following the protocols and fused real-time US and MR images moved synchronously. The accuracy of each method was evaluated by measuring the registration error, and the time required for image fusion was assessed by evaluating the recorded data using in-house software. The results obtained using the two automatic registration methods were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Image fusion was successful in all 20 patients, and the time required for image fusion was significantly shorter with the automatic registration by liver surface only method than with the automatic registration by liver surface and vessel method (median: 43.0 s, range: 29-74 s vs. median: 83.0 s, range: 46-101 s; p = 0.002). The registration error did not significantly differ between the two methods (median: 4.0 mm, range: 2.1-9.9 mm vs. median: 3.7 mm, range: 1.8-5.2 mm; p = 0.496). The automatic registration by liver surface only method offers faster image fusion between real-time US and pre-procedural MR images than does the automatic registration by liver surface and vessel method. However, the degree of accuracy was similar for the two methods.