A 3D ultrasound scanning system for image guided liver interventions

Neshat, Hamid; Cool, Derek W.; Barker, Kevin; Gardi, Lori; Kakani, Nirmal; Fenster, Aaron

doi:10.1118/1.4824326

Cited by 60 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 56 publications

(58 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Microbubbles (µB) are generally used to enhance contrast in ultrasound imaging due to their superior scattering properties and their dynamic response to the application of an ultrasonic field 74. Sometimes, intraoperative ultrasound imaging is used during surgical procedures 73, 75, 76. Recently, nanobody-based ultrasound imaging has been reported 77.…”

Section: Molecular Imaging With Nanobodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanobody: The “Magic Bullet” for Molecular Imaging?

Chakravarty¹,

Goel²,

Cai³

2014

Theranostics

238

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Molecular imaging involves the non-invasive investigation of biological processes in vivo at the cellular and molecular level, which can play diverse roles in better understanding and treatment of various diseases. Recently, single domain antigen-binding fragments known as 'nanobodies' were bioengineered and tested for molecular imaging applications. Small molecular size (~15 kDa) and suitable configuration of the complementarity determining regions (CDRs) of nanobodies offer many desirable features suitable for imaging applications, such as rapid targeting and fast blood clearance, high solubility, high stability, easy cloning, modular nature, and the capability of binding to cavities and difficult-to-access antigens. Using nanobody-based probes, several imaging techniques such as radionuclide-based, optical and ultrasound have been employed for visualization of target expression in various disease models. This review summarizes the recent developments in the use of nanobody-based probes for molecular imaging applications. The preclinical data reported to date are quite promising, and it is expected that nanobody-based molecular imaging agents will play an important role in the diagnosis and management of various diseases.

show abstract

Section: Molecular Imaging With Nanobodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanobody: The “Magic Bullet” for Molecular Imaging?

Chakravarty¹,

Goel²,

Cai³

2014

Theranostics

238

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such assistance systems include optical [1; 2], electromagnetic navigation [3–5], laser overlay [6], US guided [7], fluoroscopy-guided [8] and robotic systems [9–19]. The robotic approach offers several advantages over other assistance systems including: 1) lack of line of sight restrictions encountered in optical systems, 2) the ability to function unaffected by the presence of ferrous materials that may interfere with electromagnetic navigation systems and 3) the presence of a robust platform for guiding large diameter needles [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Manual and CT-Guided Robotic Positioning System for In Vivo Needle Placements in Swine Liver

Cornelis

Takaki

Laskhmanan³

et al. 2014

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare CT-fluoroscopy guided manual and CT-guided robotic positioning system (RPS) assisted needle placement by experienced IR physicians to targets in swine liver. Materials and Methods Manual and RPS assisted needle placement was performed by six experienced IR physicians to four 5mm fiducial seeds placed in swine liver (n=6). Placement performance was assessed for placement accuracy, procedure time, number of confirmatory scans, needle manipulations, and procedure radiation dose. Intra-modality difference in performance for each physician was assessed using paired t-Test. Inter-physician performance variation for each modality was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test. Results Paired comparison of manual and RPS assisted placements to a target by the same physician indicated accuracy outcomes were not statistically different (manual: 4.53 mm; RPS: 4.66 mm; p=0.41), but manual placement resulted in higher total radiation dose (manual: 1075.77mGy/cm; RPS: 636.4 mGy/cm; p=0.03), required more confirmation scans (manual: 6.6; RPS: 1.6; p<0.0001) and needle manipulations (manual: 4.6; RPS: 0.4; p<0.0001). Procedure time for RPS was longer than manual placement (manual: 6.12mins; RPS: 9.7mins; p=0.0003). Comparison of inter-physician performance during manual placement indicated significant differences in the time taken to complete placements (p=0.008) and number of repositions (p=0.04) but not in other study measures (p>0.05). Comparison of inter-physician performance during RPS assisted placement suggested statistically significant differences in procedure time (p=0.02) and not in other study measures (p>0.05). Conclusions CT-guided RPS assisted needle placement reduced radiation dose, number of confirmatory scans and needle manipulations when compared to manual needle placement by experienced IR physicians, with equivalent accuracy.

show abstract

“…The 3D US probe is still very expensive and also has limited field of view. Therefore, freehand [27] and mechanically-swept [28] 3D US are usually more cost-effective options in image-guided interventions, and were also comprehensively studied in the literature [29]. However, their main issue is to create 3D US images from 2D images with different orientations and breathing phases and does not provide any respiratory correction.…”

Section: D Ultrasoundmentioning

confidence: 97%