2014
DOI: 10.1080/21681163.2014.897649
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robust initialisation for single-plane 3D CT to 2D fluoroscopy image registration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Kinematics were calculated by a 2D-to-3D image registration algorithm using bespoke software (Orthovis, UNSW, Canberra 24 ). Orthovis precision was previously reported for in-plane (sagittal) registration as 0.2 mm for translation and 0.3°for rotation, while the out-of-plane precision was 0.9 mm and 0.5°.…”
Section: Kinematicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Kinematics were calculated by a 2D-to-3D image registration algorithm using bespoke software (Orthovis, UNSW, Canberra 24 ). Orthovis precision was previously reported for in-plane (sagittal) registration as 0.2 mm for translation and 0.3°for rotation, while the out-of-plane precision was 0.9 mm and 0.5°.…”
Section: Kinematicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Orthovis precision was previously reported for in-plane (sagittal) registration as 0.2 mm for translation and 0.3°for rotation, while the out-of-plane precision was 0.9 mm and 0.5°. 24 Briefly, the registration aimed to find the best image match between the 3D CT in the 2D fluoroscopy space. This achieved using a number of steps:…”
Section: Kinematicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…So the proposed work employed three different similarity measure techniques i.e., Binary Image Matching (BIM) technique, Normalized Cross Correlation (NCC), and Dice Coefficient (DC) similarity, to evaluate the best cost function for optimizing the multi-modal 3D to 2D registration procedure. The proposed work also defines the sensitivity analysis of the range of initial displacements in the optimization algorithm [11]. The registration accuracy of the proposed algorithm is measured in terms of mean Target Registration Error (mTRE), mean Iteration times and success rate [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently CT and MRI have been used to provide a 3-dimensional model, which when registered to fluoroscopy, provides 4-dimensional analysis (Li et al 2005, Hamai et al 2009, Pickering et al 2009, Koga 2015. Fluoroscopy units are now capable of capture rates of up to 250 frames per second (You et al 2001) and image registration algorithms can provide precision of less than one millimetre and one degree (DeFrate et al 2006, Akter et al 2015, Zeighami et al 2017. Computer algorithms for 4D CT are also being developed (Alta et al 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%