Improving Accuracy for Image Fusion in Abdominal Ultrasonography

Comparison of Respiratory Effects between Dexmedetomidine and Propofol Sedation for Ultrasound-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation of Hepatic Neoplasm: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Patient’s cooperation and respiration is necessary in percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We compared the respiratory patterns of dexmedetomidine and propofol sedation during this procedure. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups: the continuous infusions of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR group) or the propofol-remifentanil (PR group). We measured the tidal volume for each patient’s respiration during one-minute intervals at five points and compared the standard deviation of the tidal volumes (SDvt) between the groups. Sixty-two patients completed the study. SDvt at 10 min was not different between the groups (DR group, 108.58 vs. PR group, 149.06, p = 0.451). However, SDvt and end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO₂) level of PR group were significantly increased over time compared to DR group (p = 0.004, p = 0.021; ß = 0.14, ß = −0.91, respectively). Heart rate was significantly decreased during sedation in DR group (p < 0.001, ß = −2.32). Radiologist satisfaction was significantly higher, and the incidence of apnea was lower in DR group (p = 0.010, p = 0.009, respectively). Compared with propofol-remifentanil, sedation using dexmedetomidine-remifentanil provided a lower increase of the standard deviation of tidal volume and EtCO₂, and also showed less apnea during RFA of HCC.

Phantom Study Investigating the Accuracy of Manual and Automatic Image Fusion with the GE Logiq E9: Implications for use in Percutaneous Liver Interventions

Purpose

To determine the accuracy of automatic and manual co-registration methods for image fusion of three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) with real-time ultrasonography (US) for image-guided liver interventions.

Materials and Methods

CT images of a skills phantom with liver lesions were acquired and co-registered to US using GE Logiq E9 navigation software. Manual co-registration was compared to automatic and semiautomatic co-registration using an active tracker. Also, manual point registration was compared to plane registration with and without an additional translation point. Finally, comparison was made between manual and automatic selection of reference points. In each experiment, accuracy of the co-registration method was determined by measurement of the residual displacement in phantom lesions by two independent observers.

Results

Mean displacements for a superficial and deep liver lesion were comparable after manual and semiautomatic co-registration: 2.4 and 2.0 mm versus 2.0 and 2.5 mm, respectively. Both methods were significantly better than automatic co-registration: 5.9 and 5.2 mm residual displacement (p < 0.001; p < 0.01). The accuracy of manual point registration was higher than that of plane registration, the latter being heavily dependent on accurate matching of axial CT and US images by the operator. Automatic reference point selection resulted in significantly lower registration accuracy compared to manual point selection despite lower root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) values.

Conclusion

The accuracy of manual and semiautomatic co-registration is better than that of automatic co-registration. For manual co-registration using a plane, choosing the correct plane orientation is an essential first step in the registration process. Automatic reference point selection based on RMSD values is error-prone.