01.06.2013 Views

2012 Proceedings - International Tissue Elasticity Conference

2012 Proceedings - International Tissue Elasticity Conference

2012 Proceedings - International Tissue Elasticity Conference

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

027 ELASTIC MODULUS RECONSTRUCTION FOR TRANSVERSE VASCULAR CROSS–SECTIONS<br />

WITH AND WITHOUT COMPOUND STRAIN IMAGING.<br />

HHG Hansen 1 , Michael S Richards 2 , Marvin M. Doyley 2 , Chris L. de Korte 1 .<br />

1 Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, Nijmegen, THE NETHERLANDS;<br />

2 University of Rochester, Hopeman Engineering Building, Rochester, NY, 14627, USA.<br />

Background: Atherosclerotic plaques with a large soft lipid pool and a thin fibrous cap are more prone to<br />

rupture than fibrotic plaques [1]. The elastic Young’s modulus for both types of plaques differs. Young’s<br />

modulus images can be derived from displacement maps of the arterial wall obtained after deformation [2].<br />

Aims: This study investigated if the reconstruction of relative Young modulus images for transverse<br />

vessel cross–section could be improved by using beam steered acquisitions and subsequent compounding<br />

of the angular axial displacement estimates [3,4].<br />

Methods: Three vessel phantoms were created from gelatin–agar solutions: homogeneous phantoms with a<br />

concentric and an eccentric lumen and a two–layered phantom with a soft layer inside and an eccentric<br />

lumen. Radiofrequency (RF) data were obtained of the phantoms before and after 4mmHg intraluminal<br />

pressure increase at beam steering angles of -30º, 0º and 30º using a linear array transducer (L11–3, Philips,<br />

fc = 7.5MHz). In analogy to these experiments, RF data were simulated for a similar transducer using Field II©<br />

[5]. 2D displacements for each angle were estimated using a coarse–to–fine 2D cross–correlation based<br />

algorithm. Relative Young’s modulus images of the phantoms were constructed using the 0º axial<br />

displacement field combined with either the 0º lateral displacement field or the lateral displacement field<br />

obtained by compounding the axial displacement fields of +30º and -30º beam steering. To compare the<br />

accuracy of the modulus reconstruction the median absolute differences between the axial and lateral<br />

displacements input to and output by the reconstruction method were calculated. Furthermore, for both<br />

approaches the median and inter–quartile range (IQR) of the relative modulus estimates for each separate<br />

phantom layer were calculated and compared to the real values.<br />

Results: The median difference between lateral displacements used as input for the reconstruction and<br />

those corresponding to the reconstructed modulus image was reduced by a factor two to three when<br />

using the lateral displacements derived from compounding instead of 0º lateral estimates. The relative<br />

Young’s modulus images also became more accurate when using compounding: the IQR reduced<br />

approximately a factor 2 compared to the images derived from 0º estimates only.<br />

Conclusions: Compounding enables a more accurate reconstruction of the relative Young’s modulus for<br />

vascular structures in a transverse imaging plane than 0º imaging can. However, future studies will have<br />

to be performed to show the suitability of this technology for vulnerable plaque detection.<br />

Acknowledgements: This research is supported by the Dutch Technology Foundation STW (NKG 07589), Applied<br />

Science Division of NWO and the Technology Program of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The authors also<br />

acknowledge Philips Medical Systems for their support.<br />

References:<br />

[1] Finn et al.: Arteriosclerosis Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, 30, pp. 1282–92, 2010.<br />

[2] Richards et al.: Physics in Medicine and Biology, 56(22), pp. 7223–46, 2011.<br />

[3] Hansen et al.: Physics in Medicine and Biology, 55(11), pp. 3201–18, 2010.<br />

[4] Techavipoo et al.: IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 23(12), pp. 1479–89, 2004.<br />

[5] Jensen et al.: Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 34(Suppl. 1, Pt 1), pp. 351–53, 1996.<br />

56<br />

indicates Presenter

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!