这是indexloc提供的服务，不要输入任何密码
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

AutoInFocus, a new paradigm for ultrasound-guided spine intervention: a multi-platform validation study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose:

Ultrasound-guided spine interventions often suffer from the insufficient visualization of key anatomical structures due to the complex shapes of the self-shadowing vertebrae. Therefore, we propose an ultrasound imaging paradigm, AutoInFocus (automatic insonification optimization with controlled ultrasound), to improve the key structure visibility.

Methods:

A phased-array probe is used in conjunction with a motion platform to image a controlled workspace, and the resulting images from multiple insonification angles are combined to reveal the target anatomy. This idea is first evaluated in simulation and then realized as a robotic platform and a miniaturized patch device. A spine phantom (CIRS) and its CT scan were used in the evaluation experiments to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the advantages of the proposed method over the traditional approach.

Results:

We showed in simulation that the proposed system setup increased the visibility of interspinous space boundary, a key feature for lumbar puncture guidance, from 44.13 to 67.73% on average, and the 3D spine surface coverage from 14.31 to 35.87%, compared to traditional imaging setup. We also demonstrated the feasibility of both robotic and patch-based realizations in a spine phantom study.

Conclusion:

This work lays the foundation for a new imaging paradigm that leverages redundant and controlled insonification to allow for imaging optimization of the complex vertebrae anatomy, making it possible for high-quality visualization of key anatomies during ultrasound-guided spine interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Gueziri H-E, Santaguida C, Collins DL (2020) The state-of-the-art in ultrasound-guided spine interventions. Med Image Anal 65:101769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hacihaliloglu I, Rasoulian A, Rohling RN, Abolmaesumi P (2013) Statistical shape model to 3D ultrasound registration for spine interventions using enhanced local phase features. Springer, pp 361–368

  3. Teng W-N, Tsou M-Y, Chang W-K, Ting C-K (2017) Eyes on the needle: identification and confirmation of the epidural space. Asian J Anesthesiol 55(2):30–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang HK, Kim Y, Lin M, Paredes M, Kannan K, Moghekar A, Durr NJ, Boctor EM (2018) Toward dynamic lumbar puncture guidance using needle-based single-element ultrasound imaging. J Med Imaging 5(2):021224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Soni NJ, Franco-Sadud R, Schnobrich D, Dancel R, Tierney DM, Salame G, Restrepo MI, McHardy P (2016) Ultrasound guidance for lumbar puncture. Neurol Clin Practice 6(4):358–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Peterson MA, Abele J (2005) Bedside ultrasound for difficult lumbar puncture. J Emerg Med 28(2):197–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Edwards C, Leira EC, Gonzalez-Alegre P (2015) Residency training: a failed lumbar puncture is more about obesity than lack of ability. Neurology 84(10):69–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosiak G, Lusakowska A, Milczarek K, Konecki D, Fraczek A, Rowinski O, Kostera-Pruszczyk A (2021) Ultra-low radiation dose protocol for CT-guided intrathecal nusinersen injections for patients with spinal muscular atrophy and severe scoliosis. Neuroradiology 63(4):539–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Seeberger MD, Kaufmann M, Staender S, Schneider M, Scheidegger D (1996) Repeated dural punctures increase the incidence of postdural puncture headache. Anesthesia and Analgesia 82(2):302–305

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gorchynski J, Oman J, Newton T (2007) Interpretation of traumatic lumbar punctures in the setting of possible subarachnoid hemorrhage: Who can be safely discharged? California J Emerg Med 8(1):3

    Google Scholar 

  11. Teele DW, Dashefsky B, Rakusan T, Klein JO (1981) Meningitis after lumbar puncture in children with bacteremia. New England J Med 305(18):1079–1081

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Millington SJ, Restrepo MS, Koenig S (2018) Better with ultrasound: lumbar puncture. Chest 154(5):1223–1229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee P-Y, Huang C-C, Chiang HK (2013) Implementation of a novel high frequency ultrasound device for guiding epidural anesthesia-in vivo animal study. IEEE, pp 2049–2052

  14. Xu K, Kim Y, Boctor EM, Zhang HK (2019) Enabling low-cost point-of-care ultrasound imaging system using single element transducer and delta configuration actuator. Medical Imaging 2019: Image-Guided Procedures, Robotic Interventions, and Modeling, vol 10951. International Society for Optics and Photonics, p 109510

  15. Jensen JA (1996) Field, a program for simulating ultrasound systems, pp 351–353

  16. Treeby BE, Cox BT (2010) k-wave: Matlab toolbox for the simulation and reconstruction of photoacoustic wave fields. J Biomed Optic 15(2):021314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Salehi M, Ahmadi S-A, Prevost R, Navab N, Wein W (2015) Patient-specific 3D ultrasound simulation based on convolutional ray-tracing and appearance optimization. Springer, pp 510–518

  18. Burger B, Bettinghausen S, Radle M, Hesser J (2012) Real-time GPU-based ultrasound simulation using deformable mesh models. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 32(3):609–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guo X, Cheng A, Zhang HK, Kang H-J, Etienne-Cummings R, Boctor EM (2014) Active echo: a new paradigm for ultrasound calibration. Springer, pp 397–404

  20. Ackerman MK, Cheng A, Boctor E, Chirikjian G (2014) Online ultrasound sensor calibration using gradient descent on the Euclidean group. IEEE, pp 4900–4905

  21. Park FC, Martin BJ (1994) Robot sensor calibration: solving AX=XB on the Euclidean group. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 10(5):717–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin J-C, Pujol S, Bauer C, Jennings D, Fennessy F, Sonka M, Buatti J, Aylward S, Miller JV, Pieper S, Kikinis R (2012) 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 30(9):1323–1341

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Dr. Pezhman Foroughi, Mr. Christopher Schlichter, Dr. Purnima Rajan, Dr. Alican Demir, and Dr. Ashraf Saad. Also, we would like to extend our acknowledgment to our sponsors and funding agencies: funding from National Science Foundation SCH:CAREER Grant No. 1653322, National Institute of Health 1R43EB031731, and Analog Devices Inc. fellowship.

Funding

This study was funded by National Science Foundation SCH:CAREER Grant No. 1653322, National Institute of Health 1R43EB031731, and Analog Devices Inc. fellowship.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Keshuai Xu and Baichuan Jiang have been contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 21218, MD, USA

    Keshuai Xu, Baichuan Jiang, Peter Kazanzides & Emad Boctor

  2. Department of Neurology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, 21205, MD, USA

    Abhay Moghekar

Authors
  1. Keshuai Xu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Baichuan Jiang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abhay Moghekar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Kazanzides
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emad Boctor
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emad Boctor.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest:

Emad Boctor is a co-founder of and owns equity in Clear Guide Medical. The terms of this arrangement are being managed by the Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict of interest policies. Keshuai Xu, Baichuan Jiang, Abhay Moghekar, and Peter Kazanzides declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval:

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent:

This article does not contain patient data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, K., Jiang, B., Moghekar, A. et al. AutoInFocus, a new paradigm for ultrasound-guided spine intervention: a multi-platform validation study. Int J CARS 17, 911–920 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-022-02583-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-022-02583-6

Keywords