Kirsten Dansey, Nicholas J Swerdlow, Thomas F X O'Donnell, Sara L Zettervall, Marc L Schermerhorn, Lars Stangenberg
{"title":"血管内主动脉手术中图像融合的二维与三维配准。","authors":"Kirsten Dansey, Nicholas J Swerdlow, Thomas F X O'Donnell, Sara L Zettervall, Marc L Schermerhorn, Lars Stangenberg","doi":"10.1177/17085381251381002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveImage fusion allows for reduced operative time and radiation exposure during endovascular aortic operations. There are two approaches to register a preoperative CT scan to the patient; two X-ray images (2D) or a cone beam CT (CBCT, 3D). The goal of this study was to compare accuracy of initial image fusion alignment and time for image fusion setup using 2D versus 3D registration.MethodsWe performed an analysis of patients who underwent endovascular aortic aneurysm repair at our institution. Offline, we re-registered the patient's preoperative CT scan to the images stored from the procedure. We used an anterior-posterior image and a lateral image to register for the 2D approach and used a CBCT for the 3D registration. We then used the patient's initial aortogram to assess accuracy between the actual aortogram and the created virtual mask for both 2D and 3D registration. We chose the inferior angle between renal artery and aorta as the fiducial marker. We measured the time to complete two registration processes. We employed the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test to compare the two populations.ResultsA total of 27 patients were evaluated; 11 patients underwent EVAR, 3 FEVAR, 13 PMEG. The median (Q1,Q3) distance between the aortogram and the virtual mask for 3D registration was 8 mm (4,11) and for 2D was 14 mm (9,18.75), (p < .001). 22 patients (81%) had a more accurate registration with 3D image fusion. 2D fusion on average was faster by 93 seconds (p < .001) where time to register was 105 seconds for 2D and 197 seconds for 3D registration.ConclusionsIn the current study, 3D registration showed improved alignment of the fusion image over the 2D registration, at the expense of a longer registration time. This should be further evaluated in larger studies. Despite this added effort, we believe that 3D registration should be considered the preferred initial approach given the importance of an accurate mask for complex procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":23549,"journal":{"name":"Vascular","volume":" ","pages":"17085381251381002"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional registration for image fusion in endovascular aortic surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Kirsten Dansey, Nicholas J Swerdlow, Thomas F X O'Donnell, Sara L Zettervall, Marc L Schermerhorn, Lars Stangenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17085381251381002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectiveImage fusion allows for reduced operative time and radiation exposure during endovascular aortic operations. There are two approaches to register a preoperative CT scan to the patient; two X-ray images (2D) or a cone beam CT (CBCT, 3D). The goal of this study was to compare accuracy of initial image fusion alignment and time for image fusion setup using 2D versus 3D registration.MethodsWe performed an analysis of patients who underwent endovascular aortic aneurysm repair at our institution. Offline, we re-registered the patient's preoperative CT scan to the images stored from the procedure. We used an anterior-posterior image and a lateral image to register for the 2D approach and used a CBCT for the 3D registration. We then used the patient's initial aortogram to assess accuracy between the actual aortogram and the created virtual mask for both 2D and 3D registration. We chose the inferior angle between renal artery and aorta as the fiducial marker. We measured the time to complete two registration processes. We employed the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test to compare the two populations.ResultsA total of 27 patients were evaluated; 11 patients underwent EVAR, 3 FEVAR, 13 PMEG. The median (Q1,Q3) distance between the aortogram and the virtual mask for 3D registration was 8 mm (4,11) and for 2D was 14 mm (9,18.75), (p < .001). 22 patients (81%) had a more accurate registration with 3D image fusion. 2D fusion on average was faster by 93 seconds (p < .001) where time to register was 105 seconds for 2D and 197 seconds for 3D registration.ConclusionsIn the current study, 3D registration showed improved alignment of the fusion image over the 2D registration, at the expense of a longer registration time. This should be further evaluated in larger studies. Despite this added effort, we believe that 3D registration should be considered the preferred initial approach given the importance of an accurate mask for complex procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vascular\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"17085381251381002\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vascular\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381251381002\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381251381002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的在主动脉腔内手术中,图像融合可减少手术时间和辐射暴露。术前CT扫描记录有两种方法;两张x射线图像(2D)或锥形束CT (CBCT, 3D)。本研究的目的是比较初始图像融合对准的准确性和使用2D与3D配准进行图像融合设置的时间。方法对我院行血管内动脉瘤修复术的患者进行分析。离线时,我们将患者的术前CT扫描与手术中存储的图像重新注册。我们使用前后图像和侧位图像进行二维入路配准,并使用CBCT进行三维配准。然后,我们使用患者的初始主动脉图来评估实际主动脉图与创建的虚拟面罩之间的准确性,以进行2D和3D注册。我们选择肾动脉与主动脉之间的下角作为基准标志。我们测量了完成两个注册过程的时间。我们采用了Wilcoxon配对对带符号秩检验来比较这两个群体。结果共评估27例患者;11例行EVAR, 3例行FEVAR, 13例行PMEG。主动脉图与虚拟掩膜3D配准的中位距离(Q1,Q3)为8 mm (4,11), 2D配准的中位距离为14 mm (9,18.75), (p < 0.001)。22例(81%)患者的三维图像融合配准更准确。2D融合平均快93秒(p < 0.001),其中2D融合的注册时间为105秒,3D融合的注册时间为197秒。在目前的研究中,3D配准比2D配准更能改善融合图像的对齐,但代价是配准时间更长。这应该在更大规模的研究中进一步评估。尽管付出了额外的努力,但我们认为3D配准应该被认为是首选的初始方法,因为精确的掩模对于复杂的手术非常重要。
Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional registration for image fusion in endovascular aortic surgery.
ObjectiveImage fusion allows for reduced operative time and radiation exposure during endovascular aortic operations. There are two approaches to register a preoperative CT scan to the patient; two X-ray images (2D) or a cone beam CT (CBCT, 3D). The goal of this study was to compare accuracy of initial image fusion alignment and time for image fusion setup using 2D versus 3D registration.MethodsWe performed an analysis of patients who underwent endovascular aortic aneurysm repair at our institution. Offline, we re-registered the patient's preoperative CT scan to the images stored from the procedure. We used an anterior-posterior image and a lateral image to register for the 2D approach and used a CBCT for the 3D registration. We then used the patient's initial aortogram to assess accuracy between the actual aortogram and the created virtual mask for both 2D and 3D registration. We chose the inferior angle between renal artery and aorta as the fiducial marker. We measured the time to complete two registration processes. We employed the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test to compare the two populations.ResultsA total of 27 patients were evaluated; 11 patients underwent EVAR, 3 FEVAR, 13 PMEG. The median (Q1,Q3) distance between the aortogram and the virtual mask for 3D registration was 8 mm (4,11) and for 2D was 14 mm (9,18.75), (p < .001). 22 patients (81%) had a more accurate registration with 3D image fusion. 2D fusion on average was faster by 93 seconds (p < .001) where time to register was 105 seconds for 2D and 197 seconds for 3D registration.ConclusionsIn the current study, 3D registration showed improved alignment of the fusion image over the 2D registration, at the expense of a longer registration time. This should be further evaluated in larger studies. Despite this added effort, we believe that 3D registration should be considered the preferred initial approach given the importance of an accurate mask for complex procedures.
期刊介绍:
Vascular provides readers with new and unusual up-to-date articles and case reports focusing on vascular and endovascular topics. It is a highly international forum for the discussion and debate of all aspects of this distinct surgical specialty. It also features opinion pieces, literature reviews and controversial issues presented from various points of view.