WE-AB-BRA-01: 3D-2D Image Registration for Target Localization in Spine Surgery: Comparison of Similarity Metrics Against Robustness to Content Mismatch

Authors

  • De Silva T,

    1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    2. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    3. Siemens Healthcare XP Division, Erlangen, DE
    4. Department of Raiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    5. Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Uneri A,

    1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    2. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    3. Siemens Healthcare XP Division, Erlangen, DE
    4. Department of Raiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    5. Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Reaungamornrat S,

    1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    2. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    3. Siemens Healthcare XP Division, Erlangen, DE
    4. Department of Raiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    5. Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Ketcha M,

    1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    2. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    3. Siemens Healthcare XP Division, Erlangen, DE
    4. Department of Raiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    5. Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Vogt S,

    1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    2. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    3. Siemens Healthcare XP Division, Erlangen, DE
    4. Department of Raiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    5. Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kleinszig G,

    1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    2. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    3. Siemens Healthcare XP Division, Erlangen, DE
    4. Department of Raiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    5. Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lo S F,

    1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    2. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    3. Siemens Healthcare XP Division, Erlangen, DE
    4. Department of Raiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    5. Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Aygun N,

    1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    2. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    3. Siemens Healthcare XP Division, Erlangen, DE
    4. Department of Raiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    5. Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Wolinsky J P,

    1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    2. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    3. Siemens Healthcare XP Division, Erlangen, DE
    4. Department of Raiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    5. Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Gokaslan Z L,

    1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    2. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    3. Siemens Healthcare XP Division, Erlangen, DE
    4. Department of Raiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    5. Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Siewerdsen J H

    1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    2. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
    3. Siemens Healthcare XP Division, Erlangen, DE
    4. Department of Raiology and Radiological Sciences, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    5. Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Purpose:

In image-guided spine surgery, mapping 3D preoperative images to 2D intraoperative images via 3D-2D registration can provide valuable assistance in target localization. However, the presence of surgical instrumentation, hardware implants, and soft-tissue resection/displacement causes mismatches in image content, confounding existing registration methods. Manual/semi-automatic methods to mask such extraneous content is time consuming, user-dependent, error prone, and disruptive to clinical workflow. We developed and evaluated 2 novel similarity metrics within a robust registration framework to overcome such challenges in target localization.

Methods:

An IRB-approved retrospective study in 19 spine surgery patients included 19 preoperative 3D CT images and 50 intraoperative mobile radiographs in cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine regions. A neuroradiologist provided truth definition of vertebral positions in CT and radiography. 3D-2D registration was performed using the CMA-ES optimizer with 4 gradient-based image similarity metrics: (1) gradient information (GI); (2) gradient correlation (GC); (3) a novel variant referred to as gradient orientation (GO); and (4) a second variant referred to as truncated gradient correlation (TGC). Registration accuracy was evaluated in terms of the projection distance error (PDE) of the vertebral levels.

Results:

Conventional similarity metrics were susceptible to gross registration error and failure modes associated with the presence of surgical instrumentation: for GI, the median PDE and interquartile range was 33.0±43.6 mm; similarly for GC, PDE = 23.0±92.6 mm respectively. The robust metrics GO and TGC, on the other hand, demonstrated major improvement in PDE (7.6 ±9.4 mm and 8.1± 18.1 mm, respectively) and elimination of gross failure modes.

Conclusion:

The proposed GO and TGC similarity measures improve registration accuracy and robustness to gross failure in the presence of strong image content mismatch. Such registration capability could offer valuable assistance in target localization without disruption of clinical workflow.

G. Kleinszig and S. Vogt are employees of Siemens Healthcare.

Ancillary