Single fluoroscopic image based 2D/3D reconstruction of a scaled, patient-specific vertebral model

Purpose Accurate three-dimensional (3D) models of lumbar vertebrae can enable image-based 3D kinematic analysis. The common approach to derive 3D models is by direct segmentation of CT or MRI datasets. However, these have the disadvantages that they are expensive, timeconsuming and/or induce high-radiation doses to the patient. In this study, we present a technique to automatically reconstruct a scaled 3D lumbar vertebral model from a single two-dimensional (2D) lateral fluoroscopic image. Methods Our technique is based on a hybrid 2D/3D deformable registration strategy combining a landmark-to-ray registration with a statistical shape model-based 2D/3D reconstruction scheme. Fig. 1 shows different stages of the reconstruction process. Four cadaveric lumbar spine segments (total twelve lumbar vertebrae) were used to validate the technique. To evaluate the reconstruction accuracy, the surface models reconstructed from the lateral fluoroscopic images were compared to the associated ground truth data derived from a 3D CT-scan reconstruction technique. For each case, a surface-based matching was first used to recover the scale and the rigid transformation between the reconstructed surface model Results Our technique could successfully reconstruct 3D surface models of all twelve vertebrae. After recovering the scale and the rigid transformation between the reconstructed surface models and the ground truth models, the average error of the 2D/3D surface model reconstruction over the twelve lumbar vertebrae was found to be 1.0 mm. The errors of reconstructing surface models of all twelve vertebrae are shown in Fig. 2. It was found that the mean errors of the reconstructed surface models in comparison to their associated ground truths after iterative scaled rigid registrations ranged from 0.7 mm to 1.3 mm and the rootmean squared (RMS) errors ranged from 1.0 mm to 1.7 mm. The average mean reconstruction error was found to be 1.0 mm. Conclusion An accurate, scaled 3D reconstruction of the lumbar vertebra can be obtained from a single lateral fluoroscopic image using a statistical shape model based 2D/3D reconstruction technique. Future work will focus on applying the reconstructed model for 3D kinematic analysis of lumbar vertebrae, an extension of our previously-reported imagebased kinematic analysis. The developed method also has potential applications in surgical planning and navigation.

A Near-Real-Time Automatic Orbit Determination System for COSMIC and Its Follow-On Satellite Mission: Analysis of Orbit and Clock Errors on Radio Occultation

The COSMIC-2 mission is a follow-on mission of the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) with an upgraded payload for improved radio occultation (RO) applications. The objective of this paper is to develop a near-real-time (NRT) orbit determination system, called NRT National Chiao Tung University (NCTU) system, to support COSMIC-2 in atmospheric applications and verify the orbit product of COSMIC. The system is capable of automatic determinations of the NRT GPS clocks and LEO orbit and clock. To assess the NRT (NCTU) system, we use eight days of COSMIC data (March 24-31, 2011), which contain a total of 331 GPS observation sessions and 12 393 RO observable files. The parallel scheduling for independent GPS and LEO estimations and automatic time matching improves the computational efficiency by 64% compared to the sequential scheduling. Orbit difference analyses suggest a 10-cm accuracy for the COSMIC orbits from the NRT (NCTU) system, and it is consistent as the NRT University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (URCA) system. The mean velocity accuracy from the NRT orbits of COSMIC is 0.168 mm/s, corresponding to an error of about 0.051 μrad in the bending angle. The rms differences in the NRT COSMIC clock and in GPS clocks between the NRT (NCTU) and the postprocessing products are 3.742 and 1.427 ns. The GPS clocks determined from a partial ground GPS network [from NRT (NCTU)] and a full one [from NRT (UCAR)] result in mean rms frequency stabilities of 6.1E-12 and 2.7E-12, respectively, corresponding to range fluctuations of 5.5 and 2.4 cm and bending angle errors of 3.75 and 1.66 μrad .

Assessment of patient setup errors in IGRT in combination with a six degrees of freedom couch

PURPOSE The range of patient setup errors in six dimensions detected in clinical routine for cranial as well as for extracranial treatments, were analyzed while performing linear accelerator based stereotactic treatments with frameless patient setup systems. Additionally, the need for re-verification of the patient setup for situations where couch rotations are involved was analyzed for patients treated in the cranial region. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 2185 initial (i.e. after pre-positioning the patient with the infrared system but before image guidance) patient setup errors (1705 in the cranial and 480 in the extracranial region) obtained by using ExacTrac (BrainLAB AG, Feldkirchen, Germany) were analyzed. Additionally, the patient setup errors as a function of the couch rotation angle were obtained by analyzing 242 setup errors in the cranial region. Before the couch was rotated, the patient setup error was corrected at couch rotation angle 0° with the aid of image guidance and the six degrees of freedom (6DoF) couch. For both situations attainment rates for two different tolerances (tolerance A: ± 0.5mm, ± 0.5°; tolerance B: ± 1.0 mm, ± 1.0°) were calculated. RESULTS The mean (± one standard deviation) initial patient setup errors for the cranial cases were -0.24 ± 1.21°, -0.23 ± 0.91° and -0.03 ± 1.07° for the pitch, roll and couch rotation axes and 0.10 ± 1.17 mm, 0.10 ± 1.62 mm and 0.11 ± 1.29 mm for the lateral, longitudinal and vertical axes, respectively. Attainment rate (all six axes simultaneously) for tolerance A was 0.6% and 13.1% for tolerance B, respectively. For the extracranial cases the corresponding values were -0.21 ± 0.95°, -0.05 ± 1.08° and -0.14 ± 1.02° for the pitch, roll and couch rotation axes and 0.15 ± 1.77 mm, 0.62 ± 1.94 mm and -0.40 ± 2.15 mm for the lateral, longitudinal and vertical axes. Attainment rate (all six axes simultaneously) for tolerance A was 0.0% and 3.1% for tolerance B, respectively. After initial setup correction and rotation of the couch to treatment position a re-correction has to be performed in 77.4% of all cases to fulfill tolerance A and in 15.6% of all cases to fulfill tolerance B. CONCLUSION The analysis of the data shows that all six axes of a 6DoF couch are used extensively for patient setup in clinical routine. In order to fulfill high patient setup accuracies (e.g. for stereotactic treatments), a 6DoF couch is recommended. Moreover, re-verification of the patient setup after rotating the couch is required in clinical routine.