Targeted 2D/3D registration using ray normalization and a hybrid optimizer
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 21, 2025

Multi-modal Pulmonary Imaging: Using Complementary Information from CT and Hyperpolarized 129Xe MRI to Evaluate Lung Structure-Function
Published on: April 12, 2024
1Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01655, USA. joyoni.dey@umassmed.edu
Abstract:
X-ray images are often used to guide minimally invasive procedures in interventional radiology. The use of a preoperatively obtained 3D volume can enhance the visualization needed for guiding catheters and other surgical devices. However, for intraoperative usefulness, the 3D dataset needs to be registered to the 2D x-ray images of the patient. We investigated the effect of targeting subvolumes of interest in the 3D datasets and registering the projections with C-arm x-ray images. We developed an intensity-based 2D/3D rigid-body registration using a Monte Carlo-based hybrid algorithm as the optimizer, using a single view for registration. Pattern intensity (PI) and mutual information (MI) were two metrics tested. We used normalization of the rays to address the problems due to truncation in 3D necessary for targeting. We tested the algorithm on a C-arm x-ray image of a pig's head and a 3D dataset reconstructed from multiple views of the C-arm. PI and MI were comparable in performance. For two subvolumes starting with a set of initial poses from +/-15 mm in x, from +/-3 mm (random), in y and z and +/-4 deg in the three angles, the robustness was 94% for PI and 91% for MI, with accuracy of 2.4 mm (PI) and 2.6 mm (MI), using the hybrid algorithm. The hybrid optimizer, when compared with a standard Powell's direction set method, increased the robustness from 59% (Powell) to 94% (hybrid). Another set of 50 random initial conditions from [+/-20] mm in x,y,z and [+/-10] deg in the three angles, yielded robustness of 84% (hybrid) versus 38% (Powell) using PI as metric, with accuracies 2.1 mm (hybrid) versus 2.0 mm (Powell).

