ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2023
Comparison of image quality of 3D ultrasound: motorized acquisition versus freehand navigated acquisition, a phantom study.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A large, paired dataset of robotic and handheld lumbar spine ultrasound with ground-truth CT benchmarking.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Improved ground truth annotation by multimodal image registration from 3D ultrasound to histopathology for resected tongue carcinoma.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Intraoperative visualization of cerebral aneurysms using navigated 3D-ultrasound power-Doppler angiography.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Clinical validation of the accuracy of an intra-operative assessment tool using 3D ultrasound compared to histopathology in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntra-operative assessment of resection margins during oncological surgery is a field that needs improvement. Ultrasound (US) shows the potential to fulfill this need, but this imaging technique is highly operator-dependent. A 3D US image of the whole specimen may remedy the operator dependence. This study aims to compare and evaluate the image quality of 3D US between freehand acquisition (FA) and motorized acquisition (MA).
methodsMultiple 3D US volumes of a commercial phantom were acquired in motorized and freehand fashion. FA images were collected with electromagnetic navigation. An integrated algorithm reconstructed the FA images. MA images were stacked into a 3D volume. The image quality is evaluated following the metrics: contrast resolution, axial and elevation resolution, axial and elevation distance calibration, stability, inter-operator variability, and intra-operator variability. A linear mixed model determined statistical differences between FA and MA for these metrics.
resultsThe MA results in a statistically significant lower error of axial distance calibration (p < 0.0001) and higher stability (p < 0.0001) than FA. On the other hand, the FA has a better elevation resolution (p < 0.003) than the MA.
conclusionMA results in better image quality of 3D US than the FA method based on axial distance calibration, stability, and variability. This study suggests acquiring 3D US volumes for intra-operative ex vivo margin assessment in a motorized fashion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.