Quantitative modeling of the accuracy in registering preoperative patient-specific anatomic models into left atrial cardiac ablation procedures

Maryam E. Rettmann, David R. Holmes III, David M. Kwartowitz, Mia Gunawan, Susan B. Johnson, Jon J. Camp, Bruce M. Cameron, Charles Dalegrave, Mark W. Kolasa, Douglas L Packer, Richard A. Robb

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: In cardiac ablation therapy, accurate anatomic guidance is necessary to create effective tissue lesions for elimination of left atrial fibrillation. While fluoroscopy, ultrasound, and electroanatomic maps are important guidance tools, they lack information regarding detailed patient anatomy which can be obtained from high resolution imaging techniques. For this reason, there has been significant effort in incorporating detailed, patient-specific models generated from preoperative imaging datasets into the procedure. Both clinical and animal studies have investigated registration and targeting accuracy when using preoperative models; however, the effect of various error sources on registration accuracy has not been quantitatively evaluated. Methods: Data from phantom, canine, and patient studies are used to model and evaluate registration accuracy. In the phantom studies, data are collected using a magnetically tracked catheter on a static phantom model. Monte Carlo simulation studies were run to evaluate both baseline errors as well as the effect of different sources of error that would be present in a dynamicin vivo setting. Error is simulated by varying the variance parameters on the landmark fiducial, physical target, and surface point locations in the phantom simulation studies. In vivo validation studies were undertaken in six canines in which metal clips were placed in the left atrium to serve as ground truth points. A small clinical evaluation was completed in three patients. Landmark-based and combined landmark and surface-based registration algorithms were evaluated in all studies. In the phantom and canine studies, both target registration error and point-to-surface error are used to assess accuracy. In the patient studies, no ground truth is available and registration accuracy is quantified using point-to-surface error only. Results: The phantom simulation studies demonstrated that combined landmark and surface-based registration improved landmark-only registration provided the noise in the surface points is not excessively high. Increased variability on the landmark fiducials resulted in increased registration errors; however, refinement of the initial landmark registration by the surface-based algorithm can compensate for small initial misalignments. The surface-based registration algorithm is quite robust to noise on the surface points and continues to improve landmark registration even at high levels of noise on the surface points. Both the canine and patient studies also demonstrate that combined landmark and surface registration has lower errors than landmark registration alone. Conclusions: In this work, we describe a model for evaluating the impact of noise variability on the input parameters of a registration algorithm in the context of cardiac ablation therapy. The model can be used to predict both registration error as well as assess which inputs have the largest effect on registration accuracy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number021909
JournalMedical Physics
Volume41
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2014

Fingerprint

Anatomic Models
Noise
Canidae
Research Design
Fiducial Markers
Validation Studies
Fluoroscopy
Heart Atria
Surgical Instruments
Atrial Fibrillation
Anatomy
Catheters
Metals
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • atrial fibrillation
  • cardiac ablation
  • image-guided interventions
  • left atrium
  • registration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Quantitative modeling of the accuracy in registering preoperative patient-specific anatomic models into left atrial cardiac ablation procedures. / Rettmann, Maryam E.; Holmes III, David R.; Kwartowitz, David M.; Gunawan, Mia; Johnson, Susan B.; Camp, Jon J.; Cameron, Bruce M.; Dalegrave, Charles; Kolasa, Mark W.; Packer, Douglas L; Robb, Richard A.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 41, No. 2, 021909, 02.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rettmann, ME, Holmes III, DR, Kwartowitz, DM, Gunawan, M, Johnson, SB, Camp, JJ, Cameron, BM, Dalegrave, C, Kolasa, MW, Packer, DL & Robb, RA 2014, 'Quantitative modeling of the accuracy in registering preoperative patient-specific anatomic models into left atrial cardiac ablation procedures', Medical Physics, vol. 41, no. 2, 021909. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4861712
Rettmann, Maryam E. ; Holmes III, David R. ; Kwartowitz, David M. ; Gunawan, Mia ; Johnson, Susan B. ; Camp, Jon J. ; Cameron, Bruce M. ; Dalegrave, Charles ; Kolasa, Mark W. ; Packer, Douglas L ; Robb, Richard A. / Quantitative modeling of the accuracy in registering preoperative patient-specific anatomic models into left atrial cardiac ablation procedures. In: Medical Physics. 2014 ; Vol. 41, No. 2.
@article{5e7cb582e880477389ffe5b8f191eeeb,
title = "Quantitative modeling of the accuracy in registering preoperative patient-specific anatomic models into left atrial cardiac ablation procedures",
abstract = "Purpose: In cardiac ablation therapy, accurate anatomic guidance is necessary to create effective tissue lesions for elimination of left atrial fibrillation. While fluoroscopy, ultrasound, and electroanatomic maps are important guidance tools, they lack information regarding detailed patient anatomy which can be obtained from high resolution imaging techniques. For this reason, there has been significant effort in incorporating detailed, patient-specific models generated from preoperative imaging datasets into the procedure. Both clinical and animal studies have investigated registration and targeting accuracy when using preoperative models; however, the effect of various error sources on registration accuracy has not been quantitatively evaluated. Methods: Data from phantom, canine, and patient studies are used to model and evaluate registration accuracy. In the phantom studies, data are collected using a magnetically tracked catheter on a static phantom model. Monte Carlo simulation studies were run to evaluate both baseline errors as well as the effect of different sources of error that would be present in a dynamicin vivo setting. Error is simulated by varying the variance parameters on the landmark fiducial, physical target, and surface point locations in the phantom simulation studies. In vivo validation studies were undertaken in six canines in which metal clips were placed in the left atrium to serve as ground truth points. A small clinical evaluation was completed in three patients. Landmark-based and combined landmark and surface-based registration algorithms were evaluated in all studies. In the phantom and canine studies, both target registration error and point-to-surface error are used to assess accuracy. In the patient studies, no ground truth is available and registration accuracy is quantified using point-to-surface error only. Results: The phantom simulation studies demonstrated that combined landmark and surface-based registration improved landmark-only registration provided the noise in the surface points is not excessively high. Increased variability on the landmark fiducials resulted in increased registration errors; however, refinement of the initial landmark registration by the surface-based algorithm can compensate for small initial misalignments. The surface-based registration algorithm is quite robust to noise on the surface points and continues to improve landmark registration even at high levels of noise on the surface points. Both the canine and patient studies also demonstrate that combined landmark and surface registration has lower errors than landmark registration alone. Conclusions: In this work, we describe a model for evaluating the impact of noise variability on the input parameters of a registration algorithm in the context of cardiac ablation therapy. The model can be used to predict both registration error as well as assess which inputs have the largest effect on registration accuracy.",
keywords = "atrial fibrillation, cardiac ablation, image-guided interventions, left atrium, registration",
author = "Rettmann, {Maryam E.} and {Holmes III}, {David R.} and Kwartowitz, {David M.} and Mia Gunawan and Johnson, {Susan B.} and Camp, {Jon J.} and Cameron, {Bruce M.} and Charles Dalegrave and Kolasa, {Mark W.} and Packer, {Douglas L} and Robb, {Richard A.}",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1118/1.4861712",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantitative modeling of the accuracy in registering preoperative patient-specific anatomic models into left atrial cardiac ablation procedures

AU - Rettmann, Maryam E.

AU - Holmes III, David R.

AU - Kwartowitz, David M.

AU - Gunawan, Mia

AU - Johnson, Susan B.

AU - Camp, Jon J.

AU - Cameron, Bruce M.

AU - Dalegrave, Charles

AU - Kolasa, Mark W.

AU - Packer, Douglas L

AU - Robb, Richard A.

PY - 2014/2

Y1 - 2014/2

N2 - Purpose: In cardiac ablation therapy, accurate anatomic guidance is necessary to create effective tissue lesions for elimination of left atrial fibrillation. While fluoroscopy, ultrasound, and electroanatomic maps are important guidance tools, they lack information regarding detailed patient anatomy which can be obtained from high resolution imaging techniques. For this reason, there has been significant effort in incorporating detailed, patient-specific models generated from preoperative imaging datasets into the procedure. Both clinical and animal studies have investigated registration and targeting accuracy when using preoperative models; however, the effect of various error sources on registration accuracy has not been quantitatively evaluated. Methods: Data from phantom, canine, and patient studies are used to model and evaluate registration accuracy. In the phantom studies, data are collected using a magnetically tracked catheter on a static phantom model. Monte Carlo simulation studies were run to evaluate both baseline errors as well as the effect of different sources of error that would be present in a dynamicin vivo setting. Error is simulated by varying the variance parameters on the landmark fiducial, physical target, and surface point locations in the phantom simulation studies. In vivo validation studies were undertaken in six canines in which metal clips were placed in the left atrium to serve as ground truth points. A small clinical evaluation was completed in three patients. Landmark-based and combined landmark and surface-based registration algorithms were evaluated in all studies. In the phantom and canine studies, both target registration error and point-to-surface error are used to assess accuracy. In the patient studies, no ground truth is available and registration accuracy is quantified using point-to-surface error only. Results: The phantom simulation studies demonstrated that combined landmark and surface-based registration improved landmark-only registration provided the noise in the surface points is not excessively high. Increased variability on the landmark fiducials resulted in increased registration errors; however, refinement of the initial landmark registration by the surface-based algorithm can compensate for small initial misalignments. The surface-based registration algorithm is quite robust to noise on the surface points and continues to improve landmark registration even at high levels of noise on the surface points. Both the canine and patient studies also demonstrate that combined landmark and surface registration has lower errors than landmark registration alone. Conclusions: In this work, we describe a model for evaluating the impact of noise variability on the input parameters of a registration algorithm in the context of cardiac ablation therapy. The model can be used to predict both registration error as well as assess which inputs have the largest effect on registration accuracy.

AB - Purpose: In cardiac ablation therapy, accurate anatomic guidance is necessary to create effective tissue lesions for elimination of left atrial fibrillation. While fluoroscopy, ultrasound, and electroanatomic maps are important guidance tools, they lack information regarding detailed patient anatomy which can be obtained from high resolution imaging techniques. For this reason, there has been significant effort in incorporating detailed, patient-specific models generated from preoperative imaging datasets into the procedure. Both clinical and animal studies have investigated registration and targeting accuracy when using preoperative models; however, the effect of various error sources on registration accuracy has not been quantitatively evaluated. Methods: Data from phantom, canine, and patient studies are used to model and evaluate registration accuracy. In the phantom studies, data are collected using a magnetically tracked catheter on a static phantom model. Monte Carlo simulation studies were run to evaluate both baseline errors as well as the effect of different sources of error that would be present in a dynamicin vivo setting. Error is simulated by varying the variance parameters on the landmark fiducial, physical target, and surface point locations in the phantom simulation studies. In vivo validation studies were undertaken in six canines in which metal clips were placed in the left atrium to serve as ground truth points. A small clinical evaluation was completed in three patients. Landmark-based and combined landmark and surface-based registration algorithms were evaluated in all studies. In the phantom and canine studies, both target registration error and point-to-surface error are used to assess accuracy. In the patient studies, no ground truth is available and registration accuracy is quantified using point-to-surface error only. Results: The phantom simulation studies demonstrated that combined landmark and surface-based registration improved landmark-only registration provided the noise in the surface points is not excessively high. Increased variability on the landmark fiducials resulted in increased registration errors; however, refinement of the initial landmark registration by the surface-based algorithm can compensate for small initial misalignments. The surface-based registration algorithm is quite robust to noise on the surface points and continues to improve landmark registration even at high levels of noise on the surface points. Both the canine and patient studies also demonstrate that combined landmark and surface registration has lower errors than landmark registration alone. Conclusions: In this work, we describe a model for evaluating the impact of noise variability on the input parameters of a registration algorithm in the context of cardiac ablation therapy. The model can be used to predict both registration error as well as assess which inputs have the largest effect on registration accuracy.

KW - atrial fibrillation

KW - cardiac ablation

KW - image-guided interventions

KW - left atrium

KW - registration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894449290&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84894449290&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4861712

DO - 10.1118/1.4861712

M3 - Article

C2 - 24506630

AN - SCOPUS:84894449290

VL - 41

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 2

M1 - 021909

ER -