This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Keywords:
Interventional non-vascular, Abdomen, Ultrasound, CT, Percutaneous, Ablation procedures, Cancer
Authors:
F. Bing1, J. Garnon1, I. Enescu1, M. Cardoso2, G. Tsoumakidou1, M.-A. Thénint1, E. Breton3, M. de Mathelin3, A. Gangi1; 1Strasbourg/FR, 2Barretos/BR, 3Illkirch/FR
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2015/C-0686
Aims and objectives
Fusion imaging guidance may be an interesting solution when the interventional radiologist needs information belonging to different imaging volume.
Virtual navigation systems in pre-operative 3D MRI or CT datasets bring the possibility to improve real-time lesion targeting.
These systems can be used alone with optical or electromagnetic tracking platforms,
or associated with US guidance.1 For this last solution,
the operator has the opportunity to navigate in the CT or MRI 3D volume loaded when performing the US exploration.
Hence fusion systems bring the possibility to navigate in an enhanced 3D volume,
as the CT or MRI volume loaded can be injected (arterial or portal time for the liver for example).
The operators can beneficiate from dynamic information of contrast injection without loosing it during the procedure.
However,
the operator has to be sure that when looking at the lesion in the virtual volume,
it corresponds to the reality.
This is even more important in case of hard-to-find lesions with ultrasound (Figure 1).2-4
Fig. 1: This fusion image shows a lesion of the liver not visible with US but with enhanced CT scanner. That case emphasizes the interest of the fusion system.
Evaluation of accuracy of fusion imaging guidance system using US as real-time imaging modality for positioning a needle in vitro5 or in a mobile organ6 has been poorly reported.
In this study,
we wanted to investigate the accuracy of this system,
in measuring the distance between virtual and real locations of a 22G needle put in contact of a hepatic lesion.