Simultaneous 3D–2D image registration and C-arm calibration: Application to endovascular image-guided interventions
Purpose: Three-dimensional to two-dimensional (3D–2D) image registration is a key to fusion and simultaneous visualization of valuable information contained in 3D pre-interventional and 2D intra-interventional images with the final goal of image guidance of a procedure. In this paper, the authors focus on 3D–2D image registration within the context of intracranial endovascular image-guided interventions (EIGIs), where the 3D and 2D images are generally acquired with the same C-arm system. The accuracy and robustness of any 3D–2D registration method, to be used in a clinical setting, is influenced by (1) the method itself, (2) uncertainty of initial pose of the 3D image from which registration starts, (3) uncertainty of C-arm’s geometry and pose, and (4) the number of 2D intra-interventional images used for registration, which is generally one and at most two. The study of these influences requires rigorous and objective validation of any 3D–2D registration method against a highly accurate reference or “gold standard” registration, performed on clinical image datasets acquired in the context of the intervention. Methods: The registration process is split into two sequential, i.e., initial and final, registration stages. The initial stage is either machine-based or template matching. The latter aims to reduce possibly large in-plane translation errors by matching a projection of the 3D vessel model and 2D image. In the final registration stage, four state-of-the-art intrinsic image-based 3D–2D registration methods, which involve simultaneous refinement of rigid-body and C-arm parameters, are evaluated. For objective validation, the authors acquired an image database of 15 patients undergoing cerebral EIGI, for which accurate gold standard registrations were established by fiducial marker coregistration. Results: Based on target registration error, the obtained success rates of 3D to a single 2D image registration after initial machine-based and template matching and final registration involving C-arm calibration were 36%, 73%, and 93%, respectively, while registration accuracy of 0.59 mm was the best after final registration. By compensating in-plane translation errors by initial template matching, the success rates achieved after the final stage improved consistently for all methods, especially if C-arm calibration was performed simultaneously with the 3D–2D image registration. Conclusions: Because the tested methods perform simultaneous C-arm calibration and 3D–2D registration based solely on anatomical information, they have a high potential for automation and thus for an immediate integration into current interventional workflow. One of the authors’ main contributions is also comprehensive and representative validation performed under realistic conditions as encountered during cerebral EIGI.