Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
A and B, Model-guided segmentation. The model (green) is aligned with the preoperative MR imaging to get a primitive result with a contour (bright gray) very close to the real contour (dark gray). C, Coarse mesh. D, Multiresolution mesh.
- Fig 2.
A, Surface scanning by LRS (left) after registration with the Excelim-04 system (middle) and PoleStar N20 iMRI system (right). B, The deformed surface (right side) acquired by LRS scanning. C, Transformation from the LRS space to the image space. D, Registration of the initial surface with the deforming surface.
- Fig 3.
A, The predictive deformation of mesh. The red mesh represents the preoperative surface, the blue mesh represents the deformed surface, and the yellow arrow indicates the direction of gravity. B, 3D visualization of the deformation field by the ray casting method (above) and the final warped MR images (below). The magnitude of the deformation increases as the color changes from dark red to bright red; the blue arrows near the frontal lobe indicate the direction of the deformation.
Tables
Patient No. Prediction Error (mm) Real Displacement (mm) Compensation Accuracy (%) 1 1.78 5.27 66.0 2 1.49 4.54 66.9 3 1.91 6.22 68.1 4 1.29 4.39 70.0 5 1.60 5.22 66.6 6 1.73 4.39 62.8 7 1.31 4.79 72.1 8 1.65 4.51 63.3 9 1.73 5.90 69.6 10 1.90 7.61 74.0 11 1.39 7.29 81.4 -
a All the values are mean values of the 4 markers of each patient.
-
Mean ± Subcortical Mean ± Deep No. T df P Value Prediction error (mm) 1.78 ± 0.33 1.46 ± 0.24 11 2.930 10 .015 Real displacement (mm) 6.56 ± 1.93 4.37 ± 0.77 11 3.994 10 .003 Compensation accuracy (%) 71.3 ± 6.1 66.8 ± 5.0 11 3.220 10 .009 - Table 3:
Comparison of compensation accuracy between the horizontal and nonhorizontal bone window group
Mean (%) SD (%) No. T df PValue Horizontal 72.0 5.3 6 2.365 9 .042 Nonhorizontal 65.7 2.9 5
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.