Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental study of sector and linear array ultrasound accuracy and the influence of navigated 3D-reconstruction as compared to MRI in a brain tumor model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Currently, intraoperative ultrasound in brain tumor surgery is a rapidly propagating option in imaging technology. We examined the accuracy and resolution limits of different ultrasound probes and the influence of 3D-reconstruction in a phantom and compared these results to MRI in an intraoperative setting (iMRI).

Methods

An agarose gel phantom with predefined gel targets was examined with iMRI, a sector (SUS) and a linear (LUS) array probe with two-dimensional images. Additionally, 3D-reconstructed sweeps in perpendicular directions were made of every target with both probes, resulting in 392 measurements. Statistical calculations were performed, and comparative boxplots were generated.

Results

Every measurement of iMRI and LUS was more precise than SUS, while there was no apparent difference in height of iMRI and 3D-reconstructed LUS. Measurements with 3D-reconstructed LUS were always more accurate than in 2D-LUS, while 3D-reconstruction of SUS showed nearly no differences to 2D-SUS in some measurements. We found correlations of 3D-reconstructed SUS and LUS length and width measurements with 2D results in the same image orientation.

Conclusions

LUS provides an accuracy and resolution comparable to iMRI, while SUS is less exact than LUS and iMRI. 3D-reconstruction showed the potential to distinctly improve accuracy and resolution of ultrasound images, although there is a strong correlation with the sweep direction during data acquisition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sanai N, Berger MS (2008) Glioma extent of resection and its impact on patient outcome. Neurosurgery 62:753–764 (discussion 264-6)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Oszvald A, Guresir E, Setzer M, Vatter H, Senft C, Seifert V, Franz K (2012) Glioblastoma therapy in the elderly and the importance of the extent of resection regardless of age. J Neurosurg 116:357–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hervey-Jumper SL, Berger MS (2014) Role of surgical resection in low- and high-grade gliomas. Curr Treat Options Neurol 16:284-014-0284-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nimsky C, Ganslandt O, Buchfelder M, Fahlbusch R (2006) Intraoperative visualization for resection of gliomas: the role of functional neuronavigation and intraoperative 1.5 T MRI. Neurol Res 28:482–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Unsgaard G, Rygh OM, Selbekk T, Muller TB, Kolstad F, Lindseth F, Hernes TA (2006) Intra-operative imaging with 3D ultrasound in neurosurgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 148:235–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Coburger J, Nabavi A, Konig R, Wirtz CR, Pala A (2017) Contemporary use of intraoperative imaging in glioma surgery: a survey among EANS members. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 163:133–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang G, Li Z, Si D, Shen L (2017) Diagnostic ability of intraoperative ultrasound for identifying tumor residual in glioma surgery operation. Oncotarget 8:73105–73114

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mahboob SO, Mcphillips R, Qiu Z, Jiang Y, Meggs C, Schiavone G, Button T, Desmulliez M, Demore CE, Cochran S, Eljamel S (2016) Intraoperative ultrasound (IoUS) guided resection of gliomas: a meta-analysis and review of the literature. World Neurosurg 92:255–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gerganov VM, Samii A, Giordano M, Samii M, Fahlbusch R (2011) Two-dimensional high-end ultrasound imaging compared to intraoperative MRI during resection of low-grade gliomas. J Clin Neurosci 18:669–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Renovanz M, Hickmann AK, Henkel C, Nadji-Ohl M, Hopf NJ (2014) Navigated versus non-navigated intraoperative ultrasound: is there any impact on the extent of resection of high-grade gliomas? A retrospective clinical analysis. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 75:224–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Unsgaard G, Ommedal S, Muller T, Gronningsaeter A, Nagelhus Hernes TA (2002) Neuronavigation by intraoperative three-dimensional ultrasound: initial experience during brain tumor resection. Neurosurgery 50:804–812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rasmussen IA Jr, Lindseth F, Rygh OM, Berntsen EM, Selbekk T, Xu J, Nagelhus Hernes TA, Harg E, Haberg A, Unsgaard G (2007) Functional neuronavigation combined with intra-operative 3D ultrasound: initial experiences during surgical resections close to eloquent brain areas and future directions in automatic brain shift compensation of preoperative data. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 149:365–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ohue S, Kumon Y, Nagato S, Kohno S, Harada H, Nakagawa K, Kikuchi K, Miki H, Ohnishi T (2010) Evaluation of intraoperative brain shift using an ultrasound-linked navigation system for brain tumor surgery. Neurol Med 50:291–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Riva M, Hennersperger C, Milletari F, Katouzian A, Pessina F, Gutierrez-Becker B, Castellano A, Navab N, Bello L (2017) 3D intra-operative ultrasound and MR image guidance: pursuing an ultrasound-based management of brainshift to enhance neuronavigation. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 12:1711–1725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Prada F, Del Bene M, Mattei L, Lodigiani L, DeBeni S, Kolev V, Vetrano I, Solbiati L, Sakas G, DiMeco F (2015) Preoperative magnetic resonance and intraoperative ultrasound fusion imaging for real-time neuronavigation in brain tumor surgery. Ultraschall Med 36:174–186

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Coburger J, Scheuerle A, Kapapa T, Engelke J, Thal DR, Wirtz CR, Konig R (2015) Sensitivity and specificity of linear array intraoperative ultrasound in glioblastoma surgery: a comparative study with high field intraoperative MRI and conventional sector array ultrasound. Neurosurg Rev 38:499–509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Coburger J, Scheuerle A, Thal DR, Engelke J, Hlavac M, Wirtz CR, Konig R (2015) Linear array ultrasound in low-grade glioma surgery: histology-based assessment of accuracy in comparison to conventional intraoperative ultrasound and intraoperative MRI. Acta Neurochir 157:195–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Coburger J, Konig RW, Scheuerle A, Engelke J, Hlavac M, Thal DR, Wirtz CR (2014) Navigated high frequency ultrasound: description of technique and clinical comparison with conventional intracranial ultrasound. World Neurosurg 82(3–4):366–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gronningsaeter A, Kleven A, Ommedal S, Aarseth TE, Lie T, Lindseth F, Lango T, Unsgard G (2000) SonoWand, an ultrasound-based neuronavigation system. Neurosurgery 47:1373–1379 (discussion 1379-80)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Serra C, Stauffer A, Actor B, Burkhardt JK, Ulrich NH, Bernays RL, Bozinov O (2012) Intraoperative high frequency ultrasound in intracerebral high-grade tumors. Ultraschall Med 33:E306–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Moiyadi AV, Shetty P (2016) Direct navigated 3D ultrasound for resection of brain tumors: a useful tool for intraoperative image guidance. Neurosurg Focus 40:E5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moran CM, Pye SD, Ellis W, Janeczko A, Morris KD, McNeilly AS, Fraser HM (2011) A comparison of the imaging performance of high resolution ultrasound scanners for preclinical imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 37:493–501

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Lindseth F, Lango T, Bang J, Nagelhus Hernes TA (2002) Accuracy evaluation of a 3D ultrasound-based neuronavigation system. Comput Aided Surg 7:197–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sheng L, Li J, Chen J, Liang P, Dong B (2015) Comparison of 3D ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for microwave ablation in the canine splenomegaly model. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10:459–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bayer S, Maier A, Ostermeier M, Fahrig R (2017) Intraoperative imaging modalities and compensation for brain shift in tumor resection surgery. Int J Biomed Imaging 2017:6028645

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Stieglitz LH, Fichtner J, Andres R, Schucht P, Krahenbuhl AK, Raabe A, Beck J (2013) The silent loss of neuronavigation accuracy: a systematic retrospective analysis of factors influencing the mismatch of frameless stereotactic systems in cranial neurosurgery. Neurosurgery 72:796–807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gerard IJ, Kersten-Oertel M, Petrecca K, Sirhan D, Hall JA, Collins DL (2017) Brain shift in neuronavigation of brain tumors: a review. Med Image Anal 35:403–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zell K, Sperl JI, Vogel MW, Niessner R, Haisch C (2007) Acoustical properties of selected tissue phantom materials for ultrasound imaging. Phys Med Biol 52:475–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Prager RW, Rohling RN, Gee AH, Berman L (1998) Rapid calibration for 3-D freehand ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 24:855–869

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Miller D, Lippert C, Vollmer F, Bozinov O, Benes L, Schulte DM, Sure U (2012) Comparison of different reconstruction algorithms for three-dimensional ultrasound imaging in a neurosurgical setting. Int J Med Robot 8:348–359

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cong W, Yang J, Ai D, Song H, Chen G, Liang X, Liang P, Wang Y (2017) Global patch matching (GPM) for freehand 3D ultrasound reconstruction. Biomed Eng Online 16:124-017-0411-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Torfeh T, Hammoud R, Perkins G, McGarry M, Aouadi S, Celik A, Hwang K, Stancanello J, Petric P, Al-Hammadi N (2016) Characterization of 3D geometric distortion of magnetic resonance imaging scanners commissioned for radiation therapy planning. Magn Reson Imaging 34:645–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang D, Strugnell W, Cowin G, Doddrell DM, Slaughter R (2004) Geometric distortion in clinical MRI systems part I: evaluation using a 3D phantom. Magn Reson Imaging 22:1211–1221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Selbekk T, Jakola AS, Solheim O, Johansen TF, Lindseth F, Reinertsen I, Unsgard G (2013) Ultrasound imaging in neurosurgery: approaches to minimize surgically induced image artefacts for improved resection control. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 155:973–980

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Traumatology and orthopedic surgery, Klinikum Nürnberg, Breslauer Straße 201, 90471, Nuremberg, Germany

    Max Siekmann

  2. Departement of Pediatrics, Klinikum Kempten, Robert-Weixler-Straße 50, 88439, Kempten, Germany

    Thomas Lothes

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Ulm, Campus Günzburg, Ludwig-Heilmeyer-Straße 2, 89312, Günzburg, Germany

    Ralph König, Christian Rainer Wirtz & Jan Coburger

Authors
  1. Max Siekmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Lothes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ralph König
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Rainer Wirtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jan Coburger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Max Siekmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Jan Coburger and Ralph König work as consultants for Brainlab and have received speaker fees. The other authors have declared no personal conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siekmann, M., Lothes, T., König, R. et al. Experimental study of sector and linear array ultrasound accuracy and the influence of navigated 3D-reconstruction as compared to MRI in a brain tumor model. Int J CARS 13, 471–478 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1705-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1705-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation