Guided ultrasound calibration: where, how, and how many calibration fiducials

PurposeMany image-guided interventions rely on tracked ultrasound where the transducer is augmented with a tracking device. The relationship between the ultrasound image coordinate system and the tracking sensor must be determined accurately via probe calibration. We introduce a novel calibration framework guided by the prediction of target registration error (TRE): Between successive measurements of the calibration phantom, our framework guides the user in choosing the pose of the calibration phantom by optimizing TRE.MethodsWe introduced an oriented line calibration phantom and modeled the ultrasound calibration process as a point-to-line registration problem. We then derived a spatial stiffness model of point-to-line registration for estimating TRE magnitude at any target. Assuming isotropic, identical localization error, we used the model to estimate TRE for each pixel using the current calibration estimate. We then searched through the calibration tool space to find the pose for the next fiducial which maximally minimized TRE.ResultsBoth simulation and experimental results suggested that TRE decreases monotonically, reaching an asymptote when a sufficient number of measurements (typically around 12) are made. Independent point reconstruction accuracy assessment showed sub-millimeter accuracy of the calibration framework.ConclusionWe have introduced the first TRE-guided ultrasound calibration framework. Using a hollow straw as an oriented line phantom, we virtually constructed a rigid lines phantom and modeled the calibration process as a point-to-line registration. Highly accurate calibration was achieved with minimal measurements by using a spatial stiffness model of TRE to strategically choose the pose of the calibration phantom between successive measurements.

[1]  R W Prager,et al.  Rapid calibration for 3-D freehand ultrasound. , 1998, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[2]  Ralph Etienne-Cummings,et al.  Active Echo: A New Paradigm for Ultrasound Calibration , 2014, MICCAI.

[3]  Terry M. Peters,et al.  Integrated MR and ultrasound imaging for improved image guidance in neurosurgery , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[4]  Berthold K. P. Horn,et al.  Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions , 1987 .

[5]  Purang Abolmaesumi,et al.  Estimation of Optimal Fiducial Target Registration Error in the Presence of Heteroscedastic Noise , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[6]  D M Muratore,et al.  Beam calibration without a phantom for creating a 3-D freehand ultrasound system. , 2001, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[7]  Gregory S. Chirikjian,et al.  Online ultrasound sensor calibration using gradient descent on the Euclidean Group , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[8]  Calvin R. Maurer,et al.  A fast and accurate method of ultrasound probe calibration for image-guided surgery , 2002 .

[9]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention − MICCAI 2017: 20th International Conference, Quebec City, QC, Canada, September 11-13, 2017, Proceedings, Part II , 2017, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[10]  G Bashein,et al.  3D ultrasonic image feature localization based on magnetic scanhead tracking: in vitro calibration and validation. , 1994, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[11]  Laurence Mercier,et al.  A review of calibration techniques for freehand 3-D ultrasound systems. , 2005, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[12]  Terry M. Peters,et al.  An Iterative Closest Point Framework for Ultrasound Calibration , 2015, AE-CAI.

[13]  Terry M. Peters,et al.  Registration of 3D shapes under anisotropic scaling , 2015, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[14]  Jay B. West,et al.  Predicting error in rigid-body point-based registration , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  Terry M. Peters,et al.  Line fiducial material and thickness considerations for ultrasound calibration , 2015, Medical Imaging.

[16]  Ziv Yaniv,et al.  Which pivot calibration? , 2015, Medical Imaging.

[17]  ten Josephus Berge,et al.  Review of: J.C. Gower & G.B. Dijksterhuis: Procrustes Problems, Oxford University Press. , 2004 .

[18]  Paul J. Besl,et al.  A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes , 1992, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[19]  Randy E. Ellis,et al.  Robust registration for computer-integrated orthopedic surgery: Laboratory validation and clinical experience , 2003, Medical Image Anal..

[20]  Po-Wei Hsu,et al.  Freehand 3D Ultrasound Calibration: A Review , 2009 .

[21]  P. Schönemann,et al.  A generalized solution of the orthogonal procrustes problem , 1966 .

[22]  Frank Sauer,et al.  A Novel Phantom-Less Spatial and Temporal Ultrasound Calibration Method , 2005, MICCAI.

[23]  Randy E. Ellis,et al.  Spatial-Stiffness Analysis of Surface-Based Registration , 2004, MICCAI.

[24]  Po-Wei Hsu,et al.  Comparison of freehand 3-D ultrasound calibration techniques using a stylus. , 2008, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[25]  Purang Abolmaesumi,et al.  A real-time freehand ultrasound calibration system with automatic accuracy feedback and control. , 2009, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[26]  Terry M. Peters,et al.  Estimation of line-based target registration error , 2016, SPIE Medical Imaging.