ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2009
Clinical evaluation of angiographic multiple-view 3D reconstruction.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeEndovascular treatment of stroke, a leading cause of death in the United States, involves guidance of devices to the intervention site often through tortuous vessels. Typically, these interventions are performed under two- dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy. To facilitate these procedures, we developed and previously presented a multiple-view self-calibration method involving two steps: (1) calibration of the imaging geometry, and (2) reconstruction of the 3D vessel centerline. Only those 2D angiograms obtained during the procedure are used for reconstruction. In this manuscript, we evaluate this technique on a large set (117 cases) of clinical data obtained over a 12-month period.
methodsWe evaluated the technique using (1) the RMS difference between the calculated 3D centerlines and the average centerline (before and after application of our method), (2) the difference between the projected 3D centerlines and the 2D indicated centerlines, (3) the translations and rotations calculated by our technique, and (4) intra- and inter-user variations.
resultsOur approach (1) reduces the RMS 3D differences by a factor of 10, (2) increases the number of projected 3D centerline points lying within 1 mm of the indicated 2D centerline points by over a factor of 2 (from 28 to 71%), (3) provides an assessment of the variations in the gantry geometry as provided by the imaging system, and (4) is insensitive to user variations in indication (<1 mm differences in 3D are seen).
conclusionsThese results indicate that this technique will provide more reliable vessel centerlines in the clinical setting without requiring additional acquisitions or increasing dose to the patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20033533What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.