Instrument Pose Estimation Using Registration for Otobasis Surgery

  • David KüglerEmail author
  • Martin Andrade Jastrzebski
  • Anirban Mukhopadhyay
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10883)


Clinical outcome of several Minimally Invasive Surgeries (MIS) heavily depend on the accuracy of intraoperative pose estimation of the surgical instrument from intraoperative x-rays. The estimation consists of finding the tool in a given set of x-rays and extracting the necessary data to recreate the tool’s pose for further navigation - resulting in severe consequences of incorrect estimation. Though state-of-the-art MIS literature has exploited image registration as a tool for instrument pose estimation, lack of practical considerations in previous study design render their conclusion ineffective from a clinical standpoint. One major issue of such a study is the lack of Ground Truth in clinical data -as there are no direct ways of measuring the ground truth pose and indirect estimation accumulates error. A systematic way to overcome this problem is to generate Digitally Reconstructed Radiographs (DRR), however, such procedure generates data which are free from measuring errors (e.g. noise, number of projections), resulting claims of registration performance inconclusive. Generalization of registration performance across different instruments with different Degrees of Freedom (DoF) has not been studied as well. By marrying a rigorous study design involving several clinical scenarios with, for example, several optimizers, metrics and others parameters for image registration, this paper bridges this gap effectively. Although the pose estimation error scales inversely with instrument size, we show image registration generalizes well for different instruments and DoF. In particular, it is shown that increasing the number of x-ray projections can reduce the pose estimation error significantly across instruments - which might lead to the acquisition of several x-rays for pose estimation in a clinical workflow.


  1. 1.
    Sauer, F.: Image registration: enabling technology for image guided surgery and therapy. In: Conference Proceedings: ... Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual Conference, vol. 7, pp. 7242–7245 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vitiello, V., Lee, S.-L., Cundy, T.P., Yang, G.-Z.: Emerging robotic platforms for minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 6, 111–126 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williamson, T.M., Bell, B.J., Gerber, N., Salas, L., Zysset, P., Caversaccio, M., Weber, S.: Estimation of tool pose based on force-density correlation during robotic drilling. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 60(4), 969–976 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tonutti, M., Elson, D.S., Yang, G.-Z., Darzi, A.W., Sodergren, M.H.: The role of technology in minimally invasive surgery: state of the art, recent developments and future directions. Postgrad. Med. J. 93(1097), 159–167 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uneri, A., de Silva, T., Goerres, J., Jacobson, M.W., Ketcha, M.D., Reaungamornrat, S., Kleinszig, G., Vogt, S., Khanna, A.J., Osgood, G.M., Wolinsky, J.-P., Siewerdsen, J.H.: Intraoperative evaluation of device placement in spine surgery using known-component 3D–2D image registration. Phys. Med. Biol. 62(8), 3330–3351 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prisacariu, V.A., Reid, I.D.: PWP3D: real-time segmentation and tracking of 3D objects. Int. J. Comput. Vision 98(3), 335–354 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Markelj, P., Tomaževič, D., Likar, B., Pernuš, F.: A review of 3D/2D registration methods for image-guided interventions. Med. Image Anal. 16(3), 642–661 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rivaz, H., Karimaghaloo, Z., Collins, D.L.: Self-similarity weighted mutual information: a new nonrigid image registration metric. Med. Image Anal. 18(2), 343–358 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oksuz, I., Mukhopadhyay, A., Bevilacqua, M., Dharmakumar, R., Tsaftaris, S.A.: Dictionary learning based image descriptor for myocardial registration of CP-BOLD MR. In: Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W.M., Frangi, A.F. (eds.) MICCAI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9350, pp. 205–213. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelner, V., Capitanescu, F., Léonard, O., Wehenkel, L.: A hybrid optimization technique coupling an evolutionary and a local search algorithm. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 215(2), 448–456 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peng, X., Chen, Q., Wei, B.: An efficient medical image registration method based on mutual information model. In: 2010 Seventh International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD), pp. 2168–2172 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russakoff, D.B., Tomasi, C., Rohlfing, T., Maurer, C.R.: Image similarity using mutual information of regions. In: Pajdla, T., Matas, J. (eds.) ECCV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3023, pp. 596–607. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kügler, D., Stefanov, A., Mukhopadhyay, A.: i3PosNet: Instrument Pose Estimation from X-Ray. arXiv preprint (2018 )
  14. 14.
    Hilts, M., Duzenli, C.: Image filtering for improved dose resolution in CT polymer gel dosimetry. Med. phys. 31(1), 39–49 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yoo, T.S., Ackerman, M.J., Lorensen, W.E., Schroeder, W., Chalana, V., Aylward, S., Metaxas, D., Whitaker, R.: Engineering and algorithm design for an image processing Api: a technical report on ITK-the Insight Toolkit. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 85, 586–592 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bouget, D., Allan, M., Stoyanov, D., Jannin, P.: Vision-based and marker-less surgical tool detection and tracking: a review of the literature. Med. Image Anal. 35, 633–654 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Silva, T., Punnoose, J., Uneri, A., Goerres, J., Jacobson, M., Ketcha, M.D., Manbachi, A., Vogt, S., Kleinszig, G., Khanna, A.J., Wolinksy, J.-P., Osgood, G., Siewerdsen, J.H.: C-arm positioning using virtual fluoroscopy for image-guided surgery. In: Proceedings of SPIE-the International Society for Optical Engineering, p. 10135 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Otake, Y., Schafer, S., Stayman, J.W., Zbijewski, W., Kleinszig, G., Graumann, R., Khanna, A.J., Siewerdsen, J.H.: Automatic localization of vertebral levels in x-ray fluoroscopy using 3D–2D registration: a tool to reduce wrong-site surgery. Phys. Med. Biol. 57(17), 5485–5508 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Kügler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Andrade Jastrzebski
    • 1
  • Anirban Mukhopadhyay
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for Computer ScienceTU DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations