Advertisement

Fast 5DOF needle tracking in iOCT

  • Jakob Weiss
  • Nicola Rieke
  • Mohammad Ali Nasseri
  • Mathias Maier
  • Abouzar Eslami
  • Nassir Navab
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Intraoperative optical coherence tomography (iOCT) is an increasingly available imaging technique for ophthalmic microsurgery that provides high-resolution cross-sectional information of the surgical scene. We propose to build on its desirable qualities and present a method for tracking the orientation and location of a surgical needle. Thereby, we enable the direct analysis of instrument–tissue interaction directly in OCT space without complex multimodal calibration that would be required with traditional instrument tracking methods.

Method

The intersection of the needle with the iOCT scan is detected by a peculiar multistep ellipse fitting that takes advantage of the directionality of the modality. The geometric modeling allows us to use the ellipse parameters and provide them into a latency-aware estimator to infer the 5DOF pose during needle movement.

Results

Experiments on phantom data and ex vivo porcine eyes indicate that the algorithm retains angular precision especially during lateral needle movement and provides a more robust and consistent estimation than baseline methods.

Conclusion

Using solely cross-sectional iOCT information, we are able to successfully and robustly estimate a 5DOF pose of the instrument in less than 5.4 ms on a CPU.

Keywords

Optical coherence tomography iOCT Instrument tracking Ophthalmic tool tracking Geometric modeling 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted. This article does not contain patient data.

References

  1. 1.
    Roodaki H, di San Filippo CA, Zapp D, Navab N, Eslami A (2016) A surgical guidance system for big-bubble deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. In: MICCAI. Springer, pp 378–385Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ehlers J (2016) Intraoperative optical coherence tomography: past, present, and future. Eye 30(2):193–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Richa R, Balicki M, Meisner E, Sznitman R, Taylor R, Hager G (2011) Visual tracking of surgical tools for proximity detection in retinal surgery. In: IPCAI, pp 55–66Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baek YM, Tanaka S, Kanako H, Sugita N, Morita A, Sora S, Mochizuki R, Mitsuishi M (2012) Full state visual forceps tracking under a microscope using projective contour models. In: Proceedings of IEEE ICRA, pp 2919–2925Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sznitman R, Becker C, Fua P (2014) Fast part-based classification for instrument detection in minimally invasive surgery. In: Golland P, Hata N, Barillot C, Hornegger J, Howe R (eds) MICCAI 2014. LNCS, vol 8673. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 692–699Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allan M, Chang PL, Ourselin S, Hawkes DJ, Sridhar A, Kelly J, Stoyanov D (2015) Image based surgical instrument pose estimation with multi-class labelling and optical flow. In: MICCAI. Springer, pp 331–338Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rieke N, Tan DJ, di San Filippo CA, Tombari F, Alsheakhali M, Belagiannis V, Eslami A, Navab N (2016) Real-time localization of articulated surgical instruments in retinal microsurgery. Med Image Anal 34:82–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rieke N, Tan DJ, Tombari F, Page Vizcaíno J, di San Filippo CA, Eslami A, Navab N (2016) Real-time online adaption for robust instrument tracking and pose estimation. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, pp 422–430Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garcia Peraza Herrera L, Li W, Gruijthuijsen C, Devreker A, Attilakos G, Deprest J, Vander Poorten E, Stoyanov D, Vercauteren T, Ourselin S (2016) Real-time segmentation of non-rigid surgical tools based on deep learning and tracking. In: CARE workshop at international conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laina I, Rieke N, Rupprecht C, Vizcaíno JP, Eslami A, Tombari F, Navab N (2017) Concurrent segmentation and localization for tracking of surgical instruments. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention 2017. Springer, pp 664–672. The first two authors contributed equally to this paperGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kurmann T, Neila PM, Du X, Fua P, Stoyanov D, Wolf S, Sznitman R (2017) Simultaneous recognition and pose estimation of instruments in minimally invasive surgery. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, pp 505–513Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhou M, Roodaki H, Eslami A, Chen G, Huang K, Maier M, Lohmann C, Knoll A, Nasseri M (2017) Needle segmentation in volumetric optical coherence tomography images for ophthalmic microsurgery. Appl Sci 7(8):748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jazwinski AH (2007) Stochastic processes and filtering theory. Courier Corporation, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Aided Medical ProceduresTechnische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany
  2. 2.Augenklinik und PoliklinikKlinikum rechts der Isar der Technische Universit MünchenMunichGermany
  3. 3.Carl Zeiss Meditec AGMunichGermany
  4. 4.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations