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

Abstract

Purpose: To study the difference between rigid registration and nonrigid registration using two forms of digitization (contact and noncontact) in human in vivo liver surgery.

Approach: A 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.

Results: Surface data coverage collected by stylus and Conoprobe were $24.6\%\pm 6.4\%$ and $19.6\%\pm 5.0\%$, respectively. The average difference between stylus data and Conoprobe data using NRM was $-1.05\mathrm{mm}$ and using NRM-VC was $-1.42\mathrm{mm}$, 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.

Conclusion: The 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.