Three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound imaging can be accomplished by reconstructing a sequence of two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound images. However, 2D ultrasound images usually suffer from low resolution in the elevation direction, thereby impacting the accuracy of 3D reconstructed results. The lateral resolution of 2D ultrasound is known to significantly exceed the elevation resolution. By combining scanning sequences acquired from orthogonal directions, the effects of poor elevation resolution can be mitigated through a composite reconstructing process. Moreover, capturing ultrasound images from multiple perspectives necessitates a precise probe positioning method with a wide angle of coverage. Optical tracking is popularly used for probe positioning for its high accuracy and environment-robustness. In this paper, a novel large-angle accurate optical positioning method is used for enhancing resolution in 3D ultrasound imaging through orthogonal-view scanning and composite reconstruction. Experiments on two phantoms proved that our method could significantly improve reconstruction accuracy in the elevation direction of the probe compared with single-angle parallel scanning. The results indicate that our method holds the potential to improve current 3D ultrasound imaging techniques.
MercierLLangøTLindsethFCollinsDL.A review of calibration techniques for freehand 3-D ultrasound systems. Ultrasound Med Biol2005;31(4):449-71.
2.
MozaffariMHLeeWS.Freehand 3-D ultrasound imaging: a systematic review. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017;43(10):2099-124.
3.
BushbergJTBooneJM.The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
4.
PeikariMChenTKLassoAHeffterTFichtingerG.Effects of ultrasound section-thickness on brachytherapy needle tip localization error. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2011: 14th International Conference, Toronto, Canada, September 18-22, 2011, Proceedings, Part I 14 2011. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 299-306.
5.
GoldsteinAMadrazoBL.Slice-thickness artifacts in gray-scale ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1981;9(7):365-75.
6.
PeikariMChenTKBurdetteECFichtingerG.Section-thickness profiling for brachytherapy ultrasound guidance. In: Medical Imaging 2011: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Modeling 2011 1, Vol. 7964. SPIE, pp. 226-233.
7.
WangXRitchieCJKimY.Elevation direction deconvolution in three-dimensional ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1996;15(3):389–394.
8.
HanZPengHLuP.3D ultrasound imaging in frequency domain with 1D array transducer. Ultrasonics. 2017;76:28-34.
9.
AndresenHNikolovSIJensenJA.Precise time-of-flight calculation for 3-D synthetic aperture focusing. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2009;56(9):1880-7.
10.
BottenusNLongWZhangHKJakovljevicMBradwayDPBoctorEM, et al. Feasibility of swept synthetic aperture ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016;35(7):1676-85.
11.
LeottaDFMartinRW.Three-dimensional spatial compounding of ultrasound scans with weighting by incidence angle. Ultrason Imaging. 2000;22(1):1-9.
12.
OpretzkaJVogtMErmertH.A high-frequency ultrasound imaging system combining limited-angle spatial compounding and model-based synthetic aperture focusing. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2011;58(7):1355-65.
13.
PerperidisAMcDickenNMacGillivrayTAndersonT.Elevational spatial compounding for enhancing image quality in echocardiography. Ultrasound. 2016;24(2):74-85.
14.
NgASwanevelderJ.Resolution in ultrasound imaging. Continuing Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2011;11(5):186-92.
15.
LeprouxAvan BeekMde VriesUWasserMBakkerLCuisenaireOvan Der MarkMEntrekinR.Automated 3d whole-breast ultrasound imaging: results of a clinical pilot study. In: Medical Imaging 2010: Ultrasonic Imaging, Tomography, and Therapy 2010,Vol. 7629. SPIE, pp. 11-20.
16.
GuoHXuSWoodBYanP.Sensorless freehand 3D ultrasound reconstruction via deep contextual learning. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, Part III 23 2020. Springer International Publishing, pp. 463-472.
17.
PrevostRSalehiMJagodaSKumarNSprungJLadikosA, et al. 3D freehand ultrasound without external tracking using deep learning. Med Image Analysis. 2018;48:187-202.
18.
HousdenRJGeeAHPragerRWTreeceGM.Rotational motion in sensorless freehand three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasonics. 2008;48(5):412-22.
19.
FattoriGSafaiSCarmonaPFPeroniMPerrinRWeberDC, et al. Monitoring of breathing motion in image-guided PBS proton therapy: comparative analysis of optical and electromagnetic technologies. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12:1-1.
20.
LugadeVChenTEricksonCFujimotoMJuanJGKardunaA, et al. Comparison of an electromagnetic and optical system during dynamic motion. Biomed Eng Appl Basis Commun. 2015;27(5):1550041.
21.
LiodakisEChuKWestphalRKrettekCCitakMGoslingT, et al. Assessment of the accuracy of infrared and electromagnetic navigation using an industrial robot: which factors are influencing the accuracy of navigation?. J Orthopaed Res. 2011;29(10):1476-83.
22.
SorrientoAPorfidoMBMazzoleniSCalvosaGTenucciMCiutiG, et al. Optical and electromagnetic tracking systems for biomedical applications: a critical review on potentialities and limitations. IEEE Rev Biomed Engin. 2019;13:212-32.
23.
LuYFanKYuanJChenYGeYTaoC, et al. Free scan real time 3D ultrasound imaging with shading artefacts removal. Ultrasonics. 2023;135:107091.
24.
MonfarediRWilsonEAzizi koutenaeiB, et al. Robot-assisted ultrasound imaging: overview and development of a parallel telerobotic system. Minimally Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2015;24(1):54-62.
25.
Świątek-NajwerEBędzińskiRKrowickiPKrysztoforskiKKepplerPKozakJ.Improving surgical precision–application of navigation system in orthopedic surgery. Acta Bioeng Biomechan. 2008;10(4):55-62.
26.
MaXShenEYuanJGongLKongWJinZ, et al. Volumetric b-mode ultrasound and doppler imaging: sutomatic tracking with one single camera. Ultrason Imaging. 2024;46(2):90-101.
27.
Garrido-JuradoSMuñoz-SalinasRMadrid-CuevasFJMarín-JiménezMJ.Automatic generation and detection of highly reliable fiducial markers under occlusion. Pattern Recogn. 2014;47(6):2280-92.
28.
RudakovaVMonasseP.Camera matrix calibration using circular control points and separate correction of the geometric distortion field. In: 2014 Canadian Conference on Computer and Robot Vision2014. IEEE, pp. 195-202.
29.
SuzukiS.Topological structural analysis of digitized binary images by border following. Comput Vision Graphics Image Proc1985;30(1):32-46.
30.
OtsuN.A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1979;9(1):62-6.
31.
ZhangZ.Flexible camera calibration by viewing a plane from unknown orientations. In: Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision 1999Sep 20Vol. 1. IEEE, pp. 666-673.
32.
LuXX.A review of solutions for perspective-n-point problem in camera pose estimation. J Phys Conf Ser2018; 1087(5):p. 052009.
33.
LepetitVMoreno-NoguerFFuaP.EP n P: an accurate O (n) solution to the P n P problem. Int J Comput Vision. 2009;81:155-66.
ChenTKThurstonADEllisREAbolmaesumiP.A real-time freehand ultrasound calibration system with automatic accuracy feedback and control. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009;35(1):79-93.
36.
WenTWangCZhangYZhouS.A novel ultrasound probe spatial calibration method using a combined phantom and stylus. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2020;46(8):2079-89.
37.
SuthakornJTanaiutchawootNWiratkapanC.Ultrasound calibration with ladder phantom at multiple depths for breast biopsy navigation system. Theoret Appl Mech Lett. 2020;10(5):343-53.
38.
XiaoYYanCXDrouinSDe NigrisDKochanowskaACollinsDL.User-friendly freehand ultrasound calibration using Lego bricks and automatic registration. Int J Computer Assist Radiol Surg. 2016;11:1703-11.
