Comparison of image quality of 3D ultrasound: motorized acquisition versus freehand navigated acquisition, a phantom study

N. M. Bekedam*, L. H.E. Karssemakers, M. J.A. van Alphen, R. L.P. van Veen, L. E. Smeele, M. B. Karakullukcu

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: Intra-operative assessment of resection margins during oncological surgery is a field that needs improvement. Ultrasound (US) shows the potential to fulfill this need, but this imaging technique is highly operator-dependent. A 3D US image of the whole specimen may remedy the operator dependence. This study aims to compare and evaluate the image quality of 3D US between freehand acquisition (FA) and motorized acquisition (MA). Methods: Multiple 3D US volumes of a commercial phantom were acquired in motorized and freehand fashion. FA images were collected with electromagnetic navigation. An integrated algorithm reconstructed the FA images. MA images were stacked into a 3D volume. The image quality is evaluated following the metrics: contrast resolution, axial and elevation resolution, axial and elevation distance calibration, stability, inter-operator variability, and intra-operator variability. A linear mixed model determined statistical differences between FA and MA for these metrics. Results: The MA results in a statistically significant lower error of axial distance calibration (p < 0.0001) and higher stability (p < 0.0001) than FA. On the other hand, the FA has a better elevation resolution (p < 0.003) than the MA. Conclusion: MA results in better image quality of 3D US than the FA method based on axial distance calibration, stability, and variability. This study suggests acquiring 3D US volumes for intra-operative ex vivo margin assessment in a motorized fashion.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1649-1663
Number of pages15
JournalInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery
Volume18
Issue number9
Early online date27 May 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
We would like to thank the department of clinic physics and medical devices for their assistance in designing, developing, and testing the motorized 3D ultrasound system and also our sincere gratitude to our colleagues from the department of surgery for their help with the freehand acquisitions. Finally, we would like to thank A.T. de Groot (University of Twente, department of Robotics and Mechatronics) for his help during the setup of the study.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).

Funding

We would like to thank the department of clinic physics and medical devices for their assistance in designing, developing, and testing the motorized 3D ultrasound system and also our sincere gratitude to our colleagues from the department of surgery for their help with the freehand acquisitions. Finally, we would like to thank A.T. de Groot (University of Twente, department of Robotics and Mechatronics) for his help during the setup of the study.

Keywords

  • EM tracking
  • Freehand
  • Image quality
  • Motorized
  • Three-dimensional
  • Ultrasound

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of image quality of 3D ultrasound: motorized acquisition versus freehand navigated acquisition, a phantom study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this