No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Low dose tomographic fluoroscopy: 4D intervention guidance with running prior
1. A. Brill, J. Fleshman, Jr., B. Ramshaw, S. Wexner, and O. Kaidar-Person, “Minimally invasive procedures: What family physicians need to know,” J. Fam. Pract. (Suppl.), S1–S22 (2005).
3. UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation), Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, UNSCEAR 2008 Report: Volume I: Sources — Report to the General Assembly Scientific Annexes A and B (United Nations University Press, NY, 2010).
4. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, “Radiation dose management for fluoroscopically guided interventional medical procedures,” NCRP Report No. 168 (NCRP, Bethesda, MD, 2010).
5. IAEA, “Patient dose optimization in fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures,” Technical Document Series No. 1641 (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2010).
6. E. Paulson, D. Sheafor, D. Enterline, H. McAdams, and T. Yoshizumi, “CT fluoroscopy–guided interventional procedures: Techniques and radiation dose to radiologists,” Radiology 220, 161–167 (2001).
7. R. Silbergleit, B. Mehta, W. Sanders, and S. Talati, “Imaging-guided injection techniques with fluoroscopy and CT for spinal pain management,” Radiographics 21, 927–939 (2001).
8. A. Wagner, “CT fluoroscopy–guided epidural injections: Technique and results,” Am. J. Neuroradiol. 26, 1821–1823 (2004).
9. R. Nawfel, P. Judy, S. Silverman, S. Hooton, K. Tuncall, and D. Adams, “Patient and personnel exposure during CT fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures,” Radiology 216, 180–184 (2000).
10. N. Keat, “Real-time CT and CT fluoroscopy,” Br. J. Radiol. 74, 1088–1090 (2001).
11. S. Carlson, C. Bender, K. Classic, F. Zink, J. Quam, E. Ward, and A. Oberg, “Benefits and safety of CT fluoroscopy in interventional radiologic procedures,” Radiology 219, 515–520 (2001).
12. B. Daly and P. Templeton, “Real-time CT fluoroscopy: Evolution of an interventional tool,” Radiology 211, 309–315 (1999).
13. J. de Mey, B. Op de Beeck, M. Meysman, M. Noppen, M. De Maeseneer, M. Vanhoey, W. Vincken, and M. Osteaux, “Real time CT-fluoroscopy: Diagnostic and therapeutic applications,” Eur. J. Radiol. 34, 32–40 (2000).
14. J. Kuntz, R. Gupta, S. Schönberg, W. Semmler, M. Kachelrieß, and S. Bartling, “Real-time X-ray-based 4D image guidance of minimally invasive interventions,” Eur. Radiol. 23, 1669–1677 (2013).
16. T. Fogal and J. Krüger, “Tuvok, an architecture for large scale volume rendering,” in Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Vision, Modeling, and Visualization (Eurographics, 2010).
17. E. Sidky, C. Kao, and X. Pan, “Accurate image reconstruction from few-views and limited-angle data in divergent-beam CT,” J. X-Ray Sci. Technol. 14, 119–139 (2006).
18. L. Ritschl, F. Bergner, C. Fleischmann, and M. Kachelrieß, “Improved total variation-based CT image reconstruction applied to clinical data,” Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 1545–1561 (2011).
19. G. Chen, J. Tang, and S. Leng, “Prior image constrained compressed sensing (PICCS): A method to accurately reconstruct dynamic CT images from highly undersampled projection data sets,” Med. Phys. 35, 660–663 (2008).
20. J. Lee, J. Stayman, Y. Otake, S. Schafer, W. Zbijewski, A. Khanna, J. Prince, and J. Siewerdsen, “Volume-of-change cone-beam CT for image-guided surgery,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 4969–4989 (2012).
21. S. Balter, J. Hopewell, D. Miller, L. Wagner, and M. Zelefsky, “Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: A review of radiation effects on patients' skin and hair,” Radiology 254, 326–341 (2010).
22. A. Norbash, D. Busick, and M. Marks, “Techniques for reducing interventional neuroradiologic skin dose: Tube position rotation and supplemental beam filtration,” Am. J. Neuroradiol. 17, 41–49 (1996).
23. F. Hentschel, I. Habermaas, S. Bien, and W. Seeger, “Abschätzung der Strahlenbelastung bei interventionellen neuroradiologischen Eingriffen am Kopf von Kindern im Vergleich zur Exposition erwachsener Patienten,” RöFo 165, 176–180 (1996).
24. N. Gkanatsios, W. Huda, K. Peters, and J. Freeman, “Evaluation of an on-line patient exposure meter in neuroradiology,” Radiology 203, 837–842 (1997).
25. International Commission on Radiation Protection, “Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures,” Ann. ICRP 85, 7–51 (2000).
26. M. Mahesh, “Fluoroscopy: Patient radiation exposure issues,” Radiographics 21, 1033–1045 (2001).
27. G. Kemerink, M. Frantzen, K. Oei, M. Sluzewski, W. van Rooij, J. Wilmink, and J. van Engelshoven, “Patient and occupational dose in neurointerventional procedures,” Interv. Neuroradiol. 44, 522–528 (2002).
28. D. Miller, S. Balter, P. Cole, H. Lu, B. Schueler, M. Geisinger, A. Berenstein, R. Albert, J. Georgia, P. Noonan, J. Cardella, J. St. George, E. Rusell, T. Malisch, and R. Vogelzang, “Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: The RAD-IR study: Part I: Overall measures of dose,” J. Intervasc. Radiol. 14, 711–727 (2003).
29. J. Winston, K. Best, L. Plusquellic, and P. Thoma, Patient Exposure and Dose Guide — 2003 (CRCPD, Frankfort, KY, 2003).
30. H. Iida, J. Horii, M. Chabatake, E. Taka, M. Shimizu, and T. Mizushima, “Evaluation and estimation of entrance skin dose in patients undergoing diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures,” Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 60, 126–135 (2004).
32. H. Geijer, T. Larzon, R. Popek, and K. Beckman, “Radiation exposure in stent-grafting of abdominal aortic aneurysms,” Br. J. Radiol. 78, 906–912 (2005).
33. D. Bor, S. Cekirge, T. Türkay, O. Turan, M. Gülay, E. Onal, and B. Cil, “Patient and staff doses in interventional neuroradiology,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 117, 62–68 (2005).
34. R. Ukisu, T. Kushihashi, and I. Soh, “Skin injuries caused by fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: Case-based review and self-assessment module,” Am J. Roentgenol. 193, S59–S69 (2009).
35. M. Alexander, M. Oliff, O. Olorunsola, M. Brus-Ramer, E. Nickoloff, and P. Meyers, “Patient radiation exposure during diagnostic and therapeutic interventional neuroradiology procedures,” J. Neuroint. Surg. 2, 6–10 (2010).
36. K. Chida, M. Kato, Y. Kagaya, M. Zuguchi, H. Saito, T. Ishibashi, S. Takahashi, S. Yamada, and Y. Takai, “Radiation dose and radiation protection for patients and physicians during interventional procedure,” J. Radiat. Res. (Tokyo) 51, 97–105 (2010).
37. J. Urairat, S. Asavaphatiboon, S. Singhara Na Ayuthaya, and N. Pongnapang, “Evaluation of radiation dose to patients undergoing interventional radiology procedures at Ramathibodi Hospital, Thailand,” Biomed. Imaging Interv. J. 7, e22 (2011).
39. R. Anxionnat, S. Bracard, X. Ducrocq, Y. Trousset, L. Launay, E. Kerrien, M. Braun, R. Vaillant, F. Scomazzoni, A. Lebedinsky, and L. Picard, “Intracranial aneurysms: Clinical value of 3D digital subtraction angiography in the therapeutic decision and endovascular treatment,” Radiology 218, 799–808 (2001).
40. T. Abe, M. Hirohata, N. Tanaka, Y. Uchiyama, K. Kojima, K. Fujimoto, A. Norbash, and N. Hayabuchi, “Clinical benefits of rotational 3d angiography in endovascular treatment of ruptured cerebral aneurysm,” Am. J. Neuroradiol. 23, 686–688 (2002).
41. G. Richter, T. Engelhorn, T. Struffert, M. Doelken, O. Ganslandt, J. Hornegger, W. Kalender, and A. Doerfler, “Flat panel detector angiographic CT for stent-assisted coil embolization of broad-based cerebral aneurysms,” Am. J. Neuroradiol. 28, 1902–1908 (2007).
42. K. Namba, Y. Niimi, J. Song, and A. Berenstein, “Use of Dyna–CT angiography in neuroendovascular decision-making: A case report,” Interv. Neuroradiol. 15, 67–72 (2009).
44. B. Flach, J. Kuntz, M. Brehm, S. Bartling, and M. Kachelrieß, “Running prior for patient motion correction in low-dose 3D+time interventional flat detector CT,” in 2012 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC) (IEEE, Anaheim, CA, 2012), pp. 2395–2401.
Article metrics loading...
Today's standard imaging technique in interventional radiology is the single- or biplane x-ray fluoroscopy which delivers 2D projection images as a function of time (2D+T). This state-of-the-art technology, however, suffers from its projective nature and is limited by the superposition of the patient's anatomy. Temporally resolved tomographic volumes (3D+T) would significantly improve the visualization of complex structures. A continuous tomographic data acquisition, if carried out with today's technology, would yield an excessive patient dose. Recently the authors proposed a method that enables tomographic fluoroscopy at the same dose level as projective fluoroscopy which means that if scanning time of an intervention guided by projective fluoroscopy is the same as that of an intervention guided by tomographic fluoroscopy, almost the same dose is administered to the patient. The purpose of this work is to extend authors' previous work and allow for patient motion during the intervention.
The authors propose the running prior technique for adaptation of a prior image. This adaptation is realized by a combination of registration and projection replacement. In a first step the prior is deformed to the current position via affine and deformable registration. Then the information from outdated projections is replaced by newly acquired projections using forward and backprojection steps. The thus adapted volume is the running prior. The proposed method is validated by simulated as well as measured data. To investigate motion during intervention a moving head phantom was simulated. Realin vivo data of a pig are acquired by a prototype CT system consisting of a flat detector and a continuously rotating clinical gantry.
With the running prior technique it is possible to correct for motion without additional dose. For an application in intervention guidance both steps of the running prior technique, registration and replacement, are necessary. Reconstructed volumes based on the running prior show high image quality without introducing new artifacts and the interventional materials are displayed at the correct position.
The running prior improves the robustness of low dose 3D+T intervention guidance toward intended or unintended patient motion.
Full text loading...
Most read this month