The effect of imaging and tracking parameters on ultrasound probe calibration robustness

Ultrasound-guided interventions are progressively incorporating additional augmented reality (AR) components to improve navigation. A fundamental requirement to integrate ultrasound (US) images into AR environments is US probe calibration, which places images from a tracked US probe in the context of the tracker. To improve the incompatibility of common US probe calibration methods with clinical environments, Chen et al. developed an US calibration method (GUScal) with a focus for intraoperative application. To understand the effect of image quality and tracking accuracy on this calibration method, novice users were recruited to perform the calibration under three different conditions: (1) free-hand with one focal depth, (2) free-hand with three focal depths, and (3) using a mechanical arm to fix the needle with one focal depth. An expert user repeated this process 15 times per condition. The resultant transformation matrices and associated times were recorded for all calibrations. Numerical and visual analysis was conducted to compare the users calibrations results to each other and to the expert results. Based on our results we concluded including multiple focal depths produced the most precise calibrations for novice users. The expert user results showed that stabilizing the needle through a mechanical arm improved the calibration with practice. We recommend the inclusion of additional focal depths and a method to stabilize the needle to produce an accurate calibration in approximately 5 minutes.

[1]  Purang Abolmaesumi,et al.  A closed-form differential formulation for ultrasound spatial calibration: single wall phantom. , 2015, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

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

[3]  Andrew D. Wiles,et al.  Accuracy assessment protocols for elektromagnetic tracking systems , 2003, CARS.

[4]  Terry M. Peters,et al.  Guided ultrasound calibration: where, how, and how many calibration fiducials , 2016, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[5]  Milan Sonka,et al.  3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[6]  Andras Lasso,et al.  Design of a tracked ultrasound calibration phantom made of LEGO bricks , 2014, Medical Imaging.

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

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

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

[10]  Andras Lasso,et al.  PLUS: Open-Source Toolkit for Ultrasound-Guided Intervention Systems , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[11]  Nassir Navab,et al.  Ultrasonic image analysis and image-guided interventions , 2011, Interface Focus.

[12]  Terry M. Peters,et al.  Which point-line registration? , 2017, Medical Imaging.

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

[14]  Christophe Ley,et al.  Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median , 2013 .