The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Volume CT with a flat‐panel detector on a mobile, isocentric C‐arm: Pre‐clinical investigation in guidance of minimally invasive surgery
Open accessAbstract
A mobile isocentric C‐arm (Siemens PowerMobil) has been modified in our laboratory to include a large area flat‐panel detector (in place of the x‐ray image intensifier), providing multi‐mode fluoroscopy and cone‐beam computed tomography (CT) imaging capability. This platform represents a promising technology for minimally invasive, image‐guided surgical procedures where precision in the placement of interventional tools with respect to bony and soft‐tissue structures is critical. The image quality and performance in surgical guidance was investigated in pre‐clinical evaluation in image‐guided spinal surgery. The control, acquisition, and reconstruction system are described. The reproducibility of geometric calibration, essential to achieving high three‐dimensional (3D) image quality, is tested over extended time scales and across a broad range in C‐arm angulation (up to 45°), quantifying the effect of improper calibration on spatial resolution, soft‐tissue visibility, and image artifacts. Phantom studies were performed to investigate the precision of 3D localization (viz., fiber optic probes within a vertebral body) and effect of lateral projection truncation (limited field of view) on soft‐tissue detectability in image reconstructions. Pre‐clinical investigation was undertaken in a specific spinal procedure (photodynamic therapy of spinal metastases) in five animal subjects (pigs). In each procedure, placement of fiber optic catheters in two vertebrae (L1 and L2) was guided by fluoroscopy and cone‐beam CT. Experience across five procedures is reported, focusing on 3D image quality, the effects of respiratory motion, limited field of view, reconstruction filter, and imaging dose. Overall, the intraoperative cone‐beam CT images were sufficient for guidance of needles and catheters with respect to bony anatomy and improved surgical performance and confidence through 3D visualization and verification of transpedicular trajectories and tool placement. Future investigation includes improvement in image quality, particularly regarding x‐ray scatter, motion artifacts and field of view, and integration with optical tracking and navigation systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Flat-detector computed tomography (FD-CT)
Kalender, W. A., & Kyriakou, Y. (2007) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-007-0651-9 · Cited by 302
Sisniega, A., Zbijewski, W., Badal, A., Kyprianou, I. S., Stayman, J. W., Vaquero, J. J., & Siewerdsen, J. H. (2013) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.4801895 · Cited by 117
Self-citation3D-2D Registration for Surgical Guidance: Effect of Projection View Angles on Registration Accuracy
Uneri, A., Otake, Y., Wang, A. S., Kleinszig, G., Vogt, S., Khanna, A. J., & Siewerdsen, J. H. (2014) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/2/271 · Cited by 53
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Siewerdsen, J. H., Moseley, D. J., Burch, S., Bisland, S. K., Bogaards, A., Wilson, B. C., & Jaffray, D. A.
- Venue
- Medical Physics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 241-254
- ISSN
- 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
- 2473-4209
- OpenAlex
- W2114419957
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Volume CT with a flat‐panel detector on a mobile, isocentric C‐arm: Pre‐clinical investigation in guidance of minimally invasive surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.1836331
- The paper
- Siewerdsen, J. H., Moseley, D. J., Burch, S., Bisland, S. K., Bogaards, A., Wilson, B. C., & Jaffray, D. A. (2005). Volume CT with a flat‐panel detector on a mobile, isocentric C‐arm: Pre‐clinical investigation in guidance of minimally invasive surgery. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1836331
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.