Mr. Bowen Xiang Profile

Bowen Xiang

SPIE Involvement:

Author

Publications (2)

SPIE Journal Paper | 4 March 2024

Comparison study of intraoperative surface acquisition methods on registration accuracy for soft-tissue surgical navigation

Bowen Xiang, Jon Heiselman, Winona Richey, Michael D’Angelica, Alice Wei, T. Peter Kingham, Frankangel Servin, Kyvia Pereira, Sunil Geevarghese, William Jarnagin, Michael Miga

JMI, Vol. 11, Issue 02, 025001, (March 2024) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.10.1117/1.JMI.11.2.025001

KEYWORDS: Liver, Natural surfaces, Deformation, Image registration, Surgery, Data acquisition, Data modeling, Rigid registration, Optical tracking, Image segmentation

Read Abstract +

PurposeTo study the difference between rigid registration and nonrigid registration using two forms of digitization (contact and noncontact) in human in vivo liver surgery.ApproachA Conoprobe device attachment and sterilization process was developed to enable prospective noncontact intraoperative acquisition of organ surface data in the operating room (OR). The noncontact Conoprobe digitization method was compared against stylus-based acquisition in the context of image-to-physical registration for image-guided surgical navigation. Data from n=10 patients undergoing liver resection were analyzed under an Institutional Review Board-approved study at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Organ surface coverage of each surface acquisition method was compared. Registration accuracies resulting from the acquisition techniques were compared for (1) rigid registration method (RRM), (2) model-based nonrigid registration method (NRM) using surface data only, and (3) NRM with one subsurface feature (vena cava) from tracked intraoperative ultrasound (NRM-VC). Novel vessel centerline and tumor targets were segmented and compared to their registered preoperative counterparts for accuracy validation.ResultsSurface data coverage collected by stylus and Conoprobe were 24.6%±6.4% and 19.6%±5.0%, respectively. The average difference between stylus data and Conoprobe data using NRM was −1.05 mm and using NRM-VC was −1.42 mm, indicating the registrations to Conoprobe data performed worse than to stylus data with both NRM approaches. However, using the stylus and Conoprobe acquisition methods led to significant improvement of NRM-VC over RRM by average differences of 4.48 and 3.66 mm, respectively.ConclusionThe first use of a sterile-field amenable Conoprobe surface acquisition strategy in the OR is reported for open liver surgery. Under clinical conditions, the nonrigid registration significantly outperformed standard-of-care rigid registration, and acquisition by contact-based stylus and noncontact-based Conoprobe produced similar registration results. The accuracy benefits of noncontact surface acquisition with a Conoprobe are likely obscured by inferior data coverage and intrinsic noise within acquisition systems.

Proceedings Article | 3 April 2023 Presentation + Paper

Comparison study of intraoperative surface acquisition methods for surgical navigation

Bowen Xiang, Jon Heiselman, Winona Richey, William Jarnagin, Michael Miga

Proceedings Volume 12466, 124660N (2023) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2655971

KEYWORDS: Liver, Image registration, Deformation, Surgery, Data modeling, Rigid registration, 3D modeling, Ultrasonography, Natural surfaces, Calibration

Read Abstract +

In select patients when transplant is not possible, liver surgery is a preferred treatment for liver cancer and is performed with curative intent. Currently, only about 20% of patients are eligible for resection due to the complexity of the procedure. Image-Guided Liver Surgery (IGLS) that utilizes preoperative Computed Tomographic imaging (CT) data is not yet standard of care, and one of the confounding factors toward its realization in the liver is the presence of soft-tissue deformations that compromise the fidelity of these systems. IGLS systems involve intraoperative data collection to achieve image-to-physical alignments, and realizations to date have previously used an optically tracked stylus that requires physical contact with the liver. One source of error in this process involves contact pressure that may cause inaccuracies during the acquisition of liver shape data. In this study, we use a non-contact Conoprobe digitization method for comparison against stylus-based acquisition. We developed a novel Conoprobe device attachment and sterilization process to enable prospective data acquisition in the operating room. The goal of this work is to study the difference between rigid registration and non-rigid registration with respect to two forms of digitization (contact and non-contact) in vivo. For this preliminary work, data from one patient undergoing liver resection was analyzed from our novel prototype under an IRB approved study at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The organ surface coverage of the two digitization methods was compared. Rigid and model-based non-rigid registration were performed and evaluated for a patient undergoing liver surgery. Segmented contours of the ultrasound-identified targets were compared to their registered preoperative counterparts for accuracy validation. The findings indicate that surface coverage of the Conoprobe is less than that of stylus, suggesting that non-contact accuracy benefits may be obscured by inferior data coverage. However, more investigation is needed to potentially increase Conoprobe surface data extent during acquisition.

View contact details

UPDATE YOUR PROFILE

Is this your profile? Update it now.

Sign into your SPIE.org account

Don’t have a profile and want one?

Create an account on SPIE.org

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years