Premium
Imaging Artifacts of Medical Instruments in Ultrasound‐Guided Interventions
Author(s) -
Huang Jinlan,
Triedman John K.,
Vasilyev Nikolay V.,
Suematsu Yoshihiro,
Cleveland Robin O.,
Dupont Pierre E.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of ultrasound in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.574
H-Index - 91
eISSN - 1550-9613
pISSN - 0278-4297
DOI - 10.7863/jum.2007.26.10.1303
Subject(s) - medicine , biomedical engineering , artifact (error) , ultrasound , rod , orientation (vector space) , medical imaging , radiology , computer vision , computer science , pathology , alternative medicine , geometry , mathematics
Objectives Real‐time 3‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound imaging has the potential to become a dominant imaging technique for minimally invasive surgery. One barrier to its widespread use is that surgical instruments generate imaging artifacts, which can obfuscate their location, orientation, and geometry and obscure nearby tissue. The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the types of artifacts which could be produced by metallic instruments during interventions guided by 3D ultrasound imaging. Methods Three imaging studies were performed. First, imaging artifacts from stainless steel rods were identified in vitro and acoustically characterized. Second, 3 typical minimally invasive instruments were imaged (in vitro and in vivo), and their artifacts were analyzed. The third study compared the intensity of imaging artifacts (in vitro and in vivo) from stainless steel rods with rods composed of 3 different materials and stainless steel rods with roughened and coated surfaces. Results For the stainless steel rods, all observed artifacts are described and illustrated, and their physical origins are explained. Artifacts from the 3 minimally invasive instruments are characterized with the use of the artifacts observed with the rods. Finally, it is shown that artifacts can be greatly reduced through the use of alternate materials or by surface modification. Conclusions Instrument artifacts in 3D ultrasound images can be more confusing than those from the same instruments imaged in 2 dimensions. Real‐time 3D ultrasound imaging can, however, be used effectively for in vivo imaging of minimally invasive instruments by using artifact mitigation techniques, including careful selection of probe and incision locations, as well as by instrument modification.