Background: Fiducial markers are objects placed in the field of view of an imaging system for use as a point of reference or a measure. There is no information regarding suitable markers for joint models.
Objectives: We compared the fiducial markers commonly used in X-ray, CT, and MRI imaging modalities.
Methods: The markers tested were plastic balls, ceramic balls, passive reflective balls, liquid-filled balls, and steel balls. The balls were scanned using X-ray, CT, and MRI systems. The scanned X-ray images were reviewed if it the markers are able to be expressed. The tomographic images of CT and MRI were converted into 3D ball models and then the reconstructed shapes and dimensions of the balls were examined. The dimensional accuracy of expression and reconstruction was calculated in terms of the mean and the standard deviation.
Results: There was no marker that can be expressed in all the imaging modalities. Alternatively, we propose a synthetic marker that is composed of a hard sphere and a fat tissue wrapping. The hard ball is for X-ray and CT imaging, while the fat tissue is for MRI imaging.
Conclusion: A synthetic marker composed of a hard sphere and a fat tissue wrapping can a multimodal fiducial marker.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Ammirati M, Gross JD, Ammirati G, Dugan S. Compariosn of registration accuracy of skin- and bone-implanted fiducials for frameless stereotaxis of the brain: a prospective study. Skul Base. 2002; 12: 125-30.
2. Armsby HP. The principles of animal nutrition. J. Wiley and Sons, New York; 1908.
3. Barnden L, Kwiatek R, Lau Y, Hutton B, Thurfjell L, Pile K, et al. Validation of fully automatic brain SPET to MR co-registration. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000; 27: 147-54.
4. Choi Y, Ahn SH, Lee HS, Hur WJ, Yoon JH, Kim TH, et al. Clinical usefulness of implanted fiducial markers for hypofractionated radiotherapy of prostate cancer. J Korean Soc Ther Radiol Oncol. 2011; 29:91-8.
5. Cloutier G, Soulez G, Quanadli SD, Allard L, Qin Z, Cloutier F, et al. A multimodality vascular imaging phatom with fiducial markers visible in DSA, CTA, MRI, and ultrasound. Med Phys. 2004; 31:1424-33.
6. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, and Mahfouz MR. In vivo fluoroscopic analysis of fixed-bearing total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; 410:114-30.
7. Gendrin C, Markelj P, Pawiro SA, Spoerk J, Bloch C, Weber C, et al. Validation for 2D/3D registration I: The comparison of intensity- and gradient-based merit functions using a new gold standard data set. Med Phys. 2011; 38:1491-502.
8. Grayeli AB, Esquia-Medina G, Nguyen Y, Mazalaigue S, Vellin J-F, Lombard B, et al. Use of anatomical or invasive markers in association with skin surface registration in image-guided surgery of the temporal bone. Acta Oto-Laryngologica. 2009; 129:405-10.
9. Hendee WR, and Morgan CJ. Magnetic resonance imaging. Part I-physical principles. West J Med. 1984; 141:491-500.
10. Ho JU, Chen MF, Chen WC. The feasibility study of customized fiducial markers in image fusion and position markers for radiation therapy. Proceedings of Korean Radio Therapiest Association Conference. 2008; 43:99-100.
11. King DM, Fagan AJ, Moran CM, Browne JE. Comparative imaging study in ultrasound, MRI, CT, and DSA using a multimodality renal artery phantom. Med Phys. 2011; 38:565-73.
13. Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Mahfouz M. In vivo fluoroscopic analysis of the normal human knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; 410:69-81.
14. Lee YS, Seon JK, Shin VI, Kim GH, Jeon M. Anatomical evaluation of CT-MRI combined femoral model. Biomed Eng Online. 2008; 7:6.
15. Li G, Defrate LE, Rubash HE, Gill TJ. In vivo kinematics of the ACL during weight-bearing knee flexion. J Orthop Res. 2005; 23:340-4.
16. Li G, Wuerz TH, Defrate LE. Feasibility of using orthogonal fluoroscopic images to measure in vivo joint kinematics. J Biomech Eng. 2004; 126:314-8.
17. Parker CC, Damyanovich A, Haycocks T, Haider M, Bayley A, Catton CN. Magnetic resonance imaging in the radiation treatment planning of localized prostate cancer using intra-prostatic fiducial markers for computed tommography co-registration. Radiother Oncol. 2003; 66:217-24.
18. Pawiro SA, Markelj P, Pernus F, Gendrin C, Figl M, Weber C, et al. Validation for 2D/3D registration I: A new gold standard data set. Med Phys. 2011; 38: 1481-90.
19. Takao M, Nishii T, Sakai T, Sugano N. Application of a CT-3D fluoroscopy matching navigation system to the pelvic and femoral regions. Comput Aided Surg. 2012; 17:69-76.
20. Vikhoff-Baaz B, Bergh AC, Starck G, Ekholm S, Wikkelso C. A new set of fiducial markers for MRI, CT and SPET alignment. Nucl Med Commun. 1997; 18:1148-54.
21. West JJ, Patel AR, Kramer CM, Helms AS, Olson ES, Rangavajhala V, et al. Dynamic registration of preablation imaging with a catheter geometry to guide ablation in a Swine model: validation of image integration and assessment of catheter navigation accuracy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010; 21:81-7.