Patient-specific mitral leaflet segmentation from 4D ultrasound

  • Authors:
  • Robert J. Schneider;Neil A. Tenenholtz;Douglas P. Perrin;Gerald R. Marx;Pedro J. del Nido;Robert D. Howe

  • Affiliations:
  • Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, MA;Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, MA;Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge and Department of Cardiac Surgery, Children's Hospital, Boston, MA;Department of Cardiology, Children's Hospital, Boston, MA;Department of Cardiac Surgery, Children's Hospital, Boston, MA;Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, MA

  • Venue:
  • MICCAI'11 Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention - Volume Part III
  • Year:
  • 2011

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Segmenting the mitral valve during closure and throughout a cardiac cycle from four dimensional ultrasound (4DUS) is important for creation and validation of mechanical models and for improved visualization and understanding of mitral valve behavior. Current methods of segmenting the valve from 4DUS either require extensive user interaction and initialization, do not maintain the valve geometry across a cardiac cycle, or are incapable of producing a detailed coaptation line and surface. We present a method of segmenting the mitral valve annulus and leaflets from 4DUS such that a detailed, patient-specific annulus and leaflets are tracked throughout mitral valve closure, resulting in a detailed coaptation region. The method requires only the selection of two frames from a sequence indicating the start and end of valve closure and a single point near a closed valve. The annulus and leaflets are first found through direct segmentation in the appropriate frames and then by tracking the known geometry to the remaining frames. We compared the automatically segmented meshes to expert manual tracings for both a normal and diseased mitral valve, and found an average difference of 0.59 ± 0.49mm, which is on the order of the spatial resolution of the ultrasound volumes (0.5-1.0mm/voxel).