Block-matching-based registration to evaluate ultrasound visibility of percutaneous needles in liver-mimicking phantoms.

PURPOSE: To present a novel methodical approach to compare visibility of percutaneous needles in ultrasound images. METHODS: A motor-driven rotation platform was used to gradually change the needle angle while capturing image data. Data analysis was automated using block-matching-based registration, with a tracking and refinement step. Every 25 frames, a Hough transform was used to improve needle alignments after large rotations. The method was demonstrated by comparing three commercial needles (14G radiofrequency ablation, RFA; 18G Trocar; 22G Chiba) and six prototype needles with different sizes, materials, and surface conditions (polished, sand-blasted, and kerfed), within polyvinyl alcohol phantom tissue and ex vivo bovine liver models. For each needle and angle, a contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was determined to quantify visibility. CNR values are presented as a function of needle type and insertion angle. In addition, the normalized area under the (CNR-angle) curve was used as a summary metric to compare needles. RESULTS: In phantom tissue, the first kerfed needle design had the largest normalized area of visibility and the polished 1 mm diameter stainless steel needle the smallest (0.704 ± 0.199 vs. 0.154 ± 0.027, p < 0.01). In the ex vivo model, the second kerfed needle design had the largest normalized area of visibility, and the sand-blasted stainless steel needle the smallest (0.470 ± 0.190 vs. 0.127 ± 0.047, p < 0.001). As expected, the analysis showed needle visibility peaks at orthogonal insertion angles. For acute or obtuse angles, needle visibility was similar or reduced. Overall, the variability in needle visibility was considerably higher in livers. CONCLUSION: The best overall visibility was found with kerfed needles and the commercial RFA needle. The presented methodical approach to quantify ultrasound visibility allows comparisons of (echogenic) needles, as well as other technological innovations aiming to improve ultrasound visibility of percutaneous needles, such as coatings, material treatments, and beam steering approaches.

Needle placement errors: do we need steerable needles in interventional radiology?

PURPOSE: Accurate and precise needle placement is of utmost importance in interventional radiology. However, targeting can be challenging due to, eg, tissue motion and deformation. Steerable needles are a possible solution to overcome these challenges. The present work studied the clinical need for steerable needles. We aimed to answer three subquestions: 1) What are the current challenges in needle placement? 2) What are allowable needle placement errors? and 3) Do current needles need improvement and would steerable needles add clinical value? METHODS: A questionnaire was administered at the Annual Meeting of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe in 2016. In total, 153 respondents volunteered to fill out the survey, among them 125 (interventional) radiologists with experience in needle placement. RESULTS: 1) Current challenges in needle placement include patient-specific and technical factors. Movement of the target due to breathing makes it most difficult to place a needle (90%). 2) The mean maximal allowable needle placement error in targeted lesions is 2.7 mm. A majority of the respondents (85%) encounter unwanted needle bending upon insertion. The mean maximal encountered unwanted needle bending is 5.3 mm. 3) Needles in interventional radiology need improvement, eg, improved needle visibility and manipulability, according to 95% of the respondents. Added value for steerable needles in current interventions is seen by 93% of the respondents. CONCLUSION: Steerable needles have the potential to add clinical value to radiologic interventions. The current data can be used as input for defining clinical design requirements for technical tools, such as steerable needles and navigation models, with the aim to improve needle placement in interventional radiology.