Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Minimization of target registration error for vertebra in image-guided spine surgery

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

Abstract

Purpose 

   The accuracy of pedicle screw placement during image-guided spine surgery (IGSS) can be characterized by estimating the target registration error (TRE). The major factors that influence TRE were identified, minimized, and verified with in vitro experiments.

Materials and methods 

    Computed-tomography-compatible markers are placed over anatomical landmarks of lumbar vertebral segments in locations that are feasible and routinely used in surgical procedures. TRE was determined directly for markers placed on the pedicles of vertebra segments. First, optimum selections of landmarks are proposed for different landmarks according to the minimum achievable TRE values in different configurations. These anatomical landmarks are feasible and accessible to overcome constraints that may be imposed during surgical procedures. Second, the effect of fiducial weighting on corresponding points to overcome anisotropic localization error based on maximum likelihood approach is evaluated. Third, an experimental model for fiducial localization error (FLE) is derived to obtain the weights. At the end, an error zone was obtained for each marker to indicate the possible acceptable deviation from the marker’s exact location in practice. This study was performed in vitro on a spine phantom.

Results 

   Optimal landmark selection led to a 30 % reduction in TRE. In addition, optimum weighting of the fiducials in an FLE model that incorporates anisotropic localization error in the registration algorithm led to a 28 % reduction in the TRE.

Conclusion 

   Landmark configuration, transformation parameters, and fiducial localization error are factors that significantly affect the total TRE. These factors should be optimized to minimize the TRE. Both the optimum configuration of landmarks and the anisotropic weighing of fiducials have significant impact on the registration accuracy for IGSS.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Parseh Intelligent Surgical Systems, www.parsiss.com.

References

  1. Tjardes T et al (2010) Image-guided spine surgery: state of the art and future directions. Eur Spine J 19:25–45

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. West JB et al (2001) Fiducial point placement and the accuracy of point-based, rigid body registration. Neurosurgery 48:810–816; discussion 816–817

    Google Scholar 

  3. Shamir RR et al (2009) Optimal landmarks selection and fiducial marker placement for minimal target registration error in image-guided neurosurgery. In: SPIE medical imaging visualization, image-guided procedures, and modeling

  4. Shamir R et al (2009) Localization and registration accuracy in image guided neurosurgery: a clinical study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 4:45–52

    Google Scholar 

  5. Shamir RR et al (2012) Fiducial optimization for minimal target registration error in image-guided neurosurgery. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 31:725–737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang M, Song Z (2010) Guidelines for the placement of fiducial points in image-guided neurosurgery. Int J Med Robot 6: 142–149

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wang M, Song Z (2009) Improving target registration accuracy in image-guided neurosurgery by optimizing the distribution of fiducial points. Int J Med Robot 5:26–31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang M, Song Z (2010) Distribution templates of the fiducial points in image-guided neurosurgery. Neurosurgery 66:143–150; discussion 150–151

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang W et al (2011) Effect of fiducial configuration on target registration error in image-guided cranio-maxillofacial surgery. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 39:407–411

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fitzpatrick JM (2009) Fiducial registration error and target registration error are uncorrelated. In: SPIE 7261, medical imaging 2009: visualization, image-guided procedures, and modeling, 726102 (March 13, 2009). doi:10.1117/12.813601

  11. Fitzpatrick JM, West JB (2001) The distribution of target registration error in rigid-body point-based registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20:917–927

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moghari MH, Abolmaesumi P (2009) Distribution of target registration error for anisotropic and inhomogeneous fiducial localization error. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28:799–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moghari MH et al (2008) A theoretical comparison of different target registration error estimators. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 11:1032–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Walker MW et al (1991) Estimating 3-D location parameters using dual number quaternions. CVGIP Image Underst 54:358–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Arun KS et al (1987) Least-squares fitting of two 3-D point sets. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell PAMI–9:698–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Horn BKP (1987) Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions. J Opt Soc Am A 4:629–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Horn BKP et al (1988) Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using orthonormal matrices. J Opt Soc Am A 5:1127–1135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Balachandran R, Fitzpatrick JM (2009) Iterative solution for rigid-body point-based registration with anisotropic weighting. In: Miga MI, Wong KH (eds) Proceedings of SPIE 7261, medical imaging 2009: visualization, image-guided procedures, and modeling, 72613D, 13 March 2009. doi:10.1117/12.813887

  19. Ohta N, Kanatani K (1998) Optimal estimation of three-dimensional rotation and reliability evaluation. In: Burkhardt H, Neumann B (eds) Computer vision–ECCV’98, vol 1406. Springer, Berlin, pp 175–187

  20. West JB et al (2001) Point-based registration under a similarity transform. In: Proceedings of SPIE 4322, Medical Imaging 2001: Image Processing, 611, 3 July 2001. San Diego pp 611–622. doi:10.1117/12.431135

  21. Maier-Hein L et al (2012) Convergent iterative closest-point algorithm to accommodate anisotropic and inhomogenous localization error. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 34:1520–1532

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shamir RR et al (2009) Localization and registration accuracy in image guided neurosurgery: a clinical study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 4:45–52

    Google Scholar 

  23. Danilchenko A, Fitzpatrick JM (2011) General approach to first-order error prediction in rigid point registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 30:679–693

    Google Scholar 

  24. Maier-Hein L et al (2011) Iterative closest point algorithm with anisotropic weighting and its application to fine surface registration. In: Proceedings of the SPIE 7962, medical imaging 2011: image processing, 79620W (March 11, 2011). doi:10.1117/12.873060

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for carefully reading the paper and providing valuable comments and suggestions. The first author would also like to thank Professor J. Michael Fitzpatrick for helpful communication.

Conflict of Interest

Marzieh Ershad, Alireza Ahmadian, Nassim Dadashi Serej, Hooshang Saberi, and Keyvan Amini Khoiy declare that they have no conflict of interest

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Systems and Medical Physics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Marzieh Ershad, Alireza Ahmadian & Nassim Dadashi Serej

  2. Image Guided Intervention Group, Research Center for Biomedical Technology and Robotics (RCBTR), Tehran, Iran

    Marzieh Ershad, Alireza Ahmadian & Nassim Dadashi Serej

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Hooshang Saberi

  4. Brain and Spinal Injuries Repair Research Center (BASIR), Imam Khomeini Complex Hospital, Tehran, Iran

    Hooshang Saberi

  5. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Keyvan Amini Khoiy

  6. Parseh Intelligent Surgical System, PARSISS Company, Tehran, Iran

    Keyvan Amini Khoiy

Authors
  1. Marzieh Ershad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alireza Ahmadian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nassim Dadashi Serej
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hooshang Saberi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Keyvan Amini Khoiy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alireza Ahmadian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ershad, M., Ahmadian, A., Dadashi Serej, N. et al. Minimization of target registration error for vertebra in image-guided spine surgery. Int J CARS 9, 29–38 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-013-0914-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-013-0914-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation