Accuracy of registration techniques and vascular imaging modalities in fusion imaging for aortic endovascular interventions: a phantom study

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to assess the error of different registration techniques and imaging modalities for fusion imaging of the aorta in a standardized setting using a anthropomorphic body phantom. Materials and methods: A phantom with the 3D printed vasculature of a patient suffering from an infrarenal aortic aneurysm was constructed. Pulsatile flow was generated via an external pump. CTA/MRA of the phantom was performed, and a virtual 3D vascular model was computed. Subsequently, fusion imaging was performed employing 3D-3D and 2D-3D registration techniques. Accuracy of the registration was evaluated from 7 right/left anterior oblique c-arm angulations using the agreement of centerlines and landmarks between the phantom vessels and the virtual 3D virtual vascular model. Differences between imaging modalities were assessed in a head-to-head comparison based on centerline deviation. Statistics included the comparison of means ± standard deviations, student’s t-test, Bland-Altman analysis, and intraclass correlation coefficient for intra- and inter-reader analysis. Results: 3D-3D registration was superior to 2D-3D registration, with the highest mean centerline deviation being 1.67 ± 0.24 mm compared to 4.47 ± 0.92 mm. The highest absolute deviation was 3.25 mm for 3D-3D and 6.25 mm for 2D-3D registration. Differences for all angulations between registration techniques reached statistical significance. A decrease in registration accuracy was observed for c-arm angulations beyond 30° right anterior oblique/left anterior oblique. All landmarks (100%) were correctly positioned using 3D-3D registration compared to 81% using 2D-3D registration. Differences in accuracy between CT and MRI were acceptably small. Intra- and inter-reader reliability was excellent. Conclusion: In the realm of registration techniques, the 3D-3D method proved more accurate than did the 2D-3D method. Based on our data, the use of 2D-3D registration for interventions with high registration quality requirements (e.g., fenestrated aortic repair procedures) cannot be fully recommended. Regarding imaging modalities, CTA and MRA can be used equivalently.

Original languageEnglish
Article number51
JournalCVIR Endovascular
Volume4
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 12.2021

Research Areas and Centers

  • Academic Focus: Biomedical Engineering

DFG Research Classification Scheme

  • 205-30 Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Therapy and Radiobiology
  • 205-32 Medical Physics, Biomedical Engineering

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Accuracy of registration techniques and vascular imaging modalities in fusion imaging for aortic endovascular interventions: a phantom study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this