Comparing Image Processing Techniques for Improved 3‐Dimensional Ultrasound Imaging

Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare volumetric image processing techniques for reducing noise and speckle while retaining tissue structures in 3‐dimensional (3D) gray scale ultrasound imaging. Methods. Eighty subjects underwent a clinically indicated abdominal or obstetric 3D ultrasound examination (20 hepatic, 20 renal, and 40 obstetric cases). Volume data were processed on a pixel (“2‐dimensional [2D] processing”) or a voxel (“3D processing”) basis using commercially available image enhancement software (ContextVision AB, Linköping, Sweden). Randomized, side‐by‐side comparisons of the image processing techniques were performed for each subject. An independent and blinded reader scored the volumes for image quality on a 3‐point scale from 1 (worst) to 3 (best) and compared the results using a nonparametric Wilcoxson signed rank test. Results. The 40 subjects with abdominal 3D imaging received a mean score (± 1 SD) of 1.52 ± 0.51, 2.45 ± 0.60, and 2.75 ± 0.44 for the original, the 2D processed, and the 3D processed volumes, respectively. The differences between the unprocessed and the processed volumes were highly statistically significant (P < .0001), as was the difference between the 2D and 3D processing methods (P = .002). Similar results were obtained for the obstetric data sets (n = 39 due to an acquisition problem) with a mean score of 1.03 ± 0.16 for the original, 2.33 ± 0.48 for the 2D processed, and 2.79 ± 0.47 for the 3D processed volumes (P < .003). Conclusions. A new volumetric ultrasound image enhancement technique has been assessed in abdominal and obstetric applications. Compared to unprocessed volumes and volumes processed with 2D image enhancement software, the new 3D processing technique performed best.

[1]  E. Kiehl,et al.  Picture perfect: benefits and risk of fetal 3D ultrasound. , 2007, MCN. The American journal of maternal child nursing.

[2]  Michael Ying,et al.  Reliability of 3-D ultrasound measurements of cervical lymph node volume. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[3]  F Forsberg,et al.  Ultrasonic biomedical technology; marketing versus clinical reality. , 2004, Ultrasonics.

[4]  R. Herfkens,et al.  Technical advances in cardiovascular imaging. , 2008, Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[5]  Nicholas Ayache,et al.  Medical Image Analysis: Progress over Two Decades and the Challenges Ahead , 2000, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[6]  Martin Rumpf,et al.  A Level Set Method for Anisotropic Geometric Diffusion in 3D Image Processing , 2002, SIAM J. Appl. Math..

[7]  K. Chan,et al.  Impact of three-dimensional echocardiography in valvular heart disease , 2005, Current opinion in cardiology.

[8]  C F Weismann,et al.  Diagnostic algorithm: how to make use of new 2D, 3D and 4D ultrasound technologies in breast imaging. , 2007, European journal of radiology.

[9]  Qinghua Huang,et al.  A new adaptive interpolation algorithm for 3D ultrasound imaging with speckle reduction and edge preservation , 2009, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[10]  Asim Kurjak,et al.  Three- and four-dimensional ultrasonography for the structural and functional evaluation of the fetal face. , 2007, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  S. Acton,et al.  Speckle reducing anisotropic diffusion for 3D ultrasound images. , 2004, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[12]  Wesley Lee,et al.  Three‐ and 4‐Dimensional Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology , 2005, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.