CT and MRI compatibility of flexible 3D‐printed materials for soft actuators and robots used in image‐guided interventions
Purpose Three‐dimensional (3D) printing allows for the fabrication of medical devices with complex geometries, such as soft actuators and robots that can be used in image‐guided interventions. This study investigates flexible and rigid 3D‐printing materials in terms of their impact on multimodal med...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Medical physics (Lancaster) 2019-12, Vol.46 (12), p.5488-5498 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 5498 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | 5488 |
| container_title | Medical physics (Lancaster) |
| container_volume | 46 |
| creator | Neumann, Wiebke Pusch, Tim P. Siegfarth, Marius Schad, Lothar R. Stallkamp, Jan L. |
| description | Purpose
Three‐dimensional (3D) printing allows for the fabrication of medical devices with complex geometries, such as soft actuators and robots that can be used in image‐guided interventions. This study investigates flexible and rigid 3D‐printing materials in terms of their impact on multimodal medical imaging.
Methods
The generation of artifacts in clinical computer tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was evaluated for six flexible and three rigid materials, each with a cubical and a cylindrical geometry, and for one exemplary flexible fluidic actuator. Additionally, CT Hounsfield units (HU) were quantified for various parameter sets iterating peak voltage, x‐ray tube current, slice thickness, and convolution kernel.
Results
We found the image artifacts caused by the materials to be negligible in both CT and MR images. The HU values mainly depended on the elemental composition of the materials and applied peak voltage was ranging between 80 and 140 kVp. Flexible, nonsilicone‐based materials were ranged between 51 and 114 HU. The voltage dependency was less than 29 HU. Flexible, silicone‐based materials were ranged between 60 and 365 HU. The voltage‐dependent influence was as large as 172 HU. Rigid materials ranged between −69 and 132 HU. The voltage‐dependent influence was |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/mp.13852 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2301890216</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2301890216</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4082-fa4c1ba8772612aa279fde4b219e96f0d88aa604235d5392fc18532159b64b673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKw0AUhgdRbK2CTyCzdJN65pLbUuqt0KJIXYdJMlNGkkycmajdiI_gM_okxrbqytWBn-__4PwIHRMYEwB6VrdjwpKQ7qAh5TELOIV0Fw0BUh5QDuEAHTj3CAARC2EfDRgJk5gRNkRvkwUWTYnn91NcmLoVXue60n6FjcKqkq86ryRmF5_vH63VjZclroWXVovKYWUsdkZ5LArfCW-sW7usyY13uHM9rBusa7GUfX_Z6XKd9PVn2XhtGneI9lRvkkfbO0IPV5eLyU0wu72eTs5nQcEhoYESvCC5SOKYRoQKQeNUlZLnlKQyjRSUSSJEBJyysAxZSlVBkpBREqZ5xPMoZiN0uvG21jx10vms1q6QVSUaaTqXUQYkSYGS6A8trHHOSpX1j9fCrjIC2ffaWd1m67V79GRr7fJalr_gz7w9EGyAF13J1b-ibH63EX4B5hqKkQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2301890216</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>CT and MRI compatibility of flexible 3D‐printed materials for soft actuators and robots used in image‐guided interventions</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Neumann, Wiebke ; Pusch, Tim P. ; Siegfarth, Marius ; Schad, Lothar R. ; Stallkamp, Jan L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Neumann, Wiebke ; Pusch, Tim P. ; Siegfarth, Marius ; Schad, Lothar R. ; Stallkamp, Jan L.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
Three‐dimensional (3D) printing allows for the fabrication of medical devices with complex geometries, such as soft actuators and robots that can be used in image‐guided interventions. This study investigates flexible and rigid 3D‐printing materials in terms of their impact on multimodal medical imaging.
Methods
The generation of artifacts in clinical computer tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was evaluated for six flexible and three rigid materials, each with a cubical and a cylindrical geometry, and for one exemplary flexible fluidic actuator. Additionally, CT Hounsfield units (HU) were quantified for various parameter sets iterating peak voltage, x‐ray tube current, slice thickness, and convolution kernel.
Results
We found the image artifacts caused by the materials to be negligible in both CT and MR images. The HU values mainly depended on the elemental composition of the materials and applied peak voltage was ranging between 80 and 140 kVp. Flexible, nonsilicone‐based materials were ranged between 51 and 114 HU. The voltage dependency was less than 29 HU. Flexible, silicone‐based materials were ranged between 60 and 365 HU. The voltage‐dependent influence was as large as 172 HU. Rigid materials ranged between −69 and 132 HU. The voltage‐dependent influence was <33 HU.
Conclusions
All tested materials may be employed for devices placed in the field of view during CT and MR imaging as no significant artifacts were measured. Moreover, the material selection in CT could be based on the desired visibility of the material depending on the application. Given the wide availability of the tested materials, we expect our results to have a positive impact on the development of devices and robots for image‐guided interventions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/mp.13852</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31587313</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>artifact quantification ; computed tomography ; Equipment Design ; magnetic resonance imaging ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - instrumentation ; Mechanical Phenomena ; medical imaging ; Printing, Three-Dimensional ; Robotics ; soft actuators ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation</subject><ispartof>Medical physics (Lancaster), 2019-12, Vol.46 (12), p.5488-5498</ispartof><rights>2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4082-fa4c1ba8772612aa279fde4b219e96f0d88aa604235d5392fc18532159b64b673</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4082-fa4c1ba8772612aa279fde4b219e96f0d88aa604235d5392fc18532159b64b673</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fmp.13852$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fmp.13852$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31587313$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Neumann, Wiebke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pusch, Tim P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siegfarth, Marius</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schad, Lothar R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stallkamp, Jan L.</creatorcontrib><title>CT and MRI compatibility of flexible 3D‐printed materials for soft actuators and robots used in image‐guided interventions</title><title>Medical physics (Lancaster)</title><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><description>Purpose
Three‐dimensional (3D) printing allows for the fabrication of medical devices with complex geometries, such as soft actuators and robots that can be used in image‐guided interventions. This study investigates flexible and rigid 3D‐printing materials in terms of their impact on multimodal medical imaging.
Methods
The generation of artifacts in clinical computer tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was evaluated for six flexible and three rigid materials, each with a cubical and a cylindrical geometry, and for one exemplary flexible fluidic actuator. Additionally, CT Hounsfield units (HU) were quantified for various parameter sets iterating peak voltage, x‐ray tube current, slice thickness, and convolution kernel.
Results
We found the image artifacts caused by the materials to be negligible in both CT and MR images. The HU values mainly depended on the elemental composition of the materials and applied peak voltage was ranging between 80 and 140 kVp. Flexible, nonsilicone‐based materials were ranged between 51 and 114 HU. The voltage dependency was less than 29 HU. Flexible, silicone‐based materials were ranged between 60 and 365 HU. The voltage‐dependent influence was as large as 172 HU. Rigid materials ranged between −69 and 132 HU. The voltage‐dependent influence was <33 HU.
Conclusions
All tested materials may be employed for devices placed in the field of view during CT and MR imaging as no significant artifacts were measured. Moreover, the material selection in CT could be based on the desired visibility of the material depending on the application. Given the wide availability of the tested materials, we expect our results to have a positive impact on the development of devices and robots for image‐guided interventions.</description><subject>artifact quantification</subject><subject>computed tomography</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - instrumentation</subject><subject>Mechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>medical imaging</subject><subject>Printing, Three-Dimensional</subject><subject>Robotics</subject><subject>soft actuators</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtKw0AUhgdRbK2CTyCzdJN65pLbUuqt0KJIXYdJMlNGkkycmajdiI_gM_okxrbqytWBn-__4PwIHRMYEwB6VrdjwpKQ7qAh5TELOIV0Fw0BUh5QDuEAHTj3CAARC2EfDRgJk5gRNkRvkwUWTYnn91NcmLoVXue60n6FjcKqkq86ryRmF5_vH63VjZclroWXVovKYWUsdkZ5LArfCW-sW7usyY13uHM9rBusa7GUfX_Z6XKd9PVn2XhtGneI9lRvkkfbO0IPV5eLyU0wu72eTs5nQcEhoYESvCC5SOKYRoQKQeNUlZLnlKQyjRSUSSJEBJyysAxZSlVBkpBREqZ5xPMoZiN0uvG21jx10vms1q6QVSUaaTqXUQYkSYGS6A8trHHOSpX1j9fCrjIC2ffaWd1m67V79GRr7fJalr_gz7w9EGyAF13J1b-ibH63EX4B5hqKkQ</recordid><startdate>201912</startdate><enddate>201912</enddate><creator>Neumann, Wiebke</creator><creator>Pusch, Tim P.</creator><creator>Siegfarth, Marius</creator><creator>Schad, Lothar R.</creator><creator>Stallkamp, Jan L.</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201912</creationdate><title>CT and MRI compatibility of flexible 3D‐printed materials for soft actuators and robots used in image‐guided interventions</title><author>Neumann, Wiebke ; Pusch, Tim P. ; Siegfarth, Marius ; Schad, Lothar R. ; Stallkamp, Jan L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4082-fa4c1ba8772612aa279fde4b219e96f0d88aa604235d5392fc18532159b64b673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>artifact quantification</topic><topic>computed tomography</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - instrumentation</topic><topic>Mechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>medical imaging</topic><topic>Printing, Three-Dimensional</topic><topic>Robotics</topic><topic>soft actuators</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Neumann, Wiebke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pusch, Tim P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siegfarth, Marius</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schad, Lothar R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stallkamp, Jan L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Neumann, Wiebke</au><au>Pusch, Tim P.</au><au>Siegfarth, Marius</au><au>Schad, Lothar R.</au><au>Stallkamp, Jan L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>CT and MRI compatibility of flexible 3D‐printed materials for soft actuators and robots used in image‐guided interventions</atitle><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><date>2019-12</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>5488</spage><epage>5498</epage><pages>5488-5498</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><abstract>Purpose
Three‐dimensional (3D) printing allows for the fabrication of medical devices with complex geometries, such as soft actuators and robots that can be used in image‐guided interventions. This study investigates flexible and rigid 3D‐printing materials in terms of their impact on multimodal medical imaging.
Methods
The generation of artifacts in clinical computer tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was evaluated for six flexible and three rigid materials, each with a cubical and a cylindrical geometry, and for one exemplary flexible fluidic actuator. Additionally, CT Hounsfield units (HU) were quantified for various parameter sets iterating peak voltage, x‐ray tube current, slice thickness, and convolution kernel.
Results
We found the image artifacts caused by the materials to be negligible in both CT and MR images. The HU values mainly depended on the elemental composition of the materials and applied peak voltage was ranging between 80 and 140 kVp. Flexible, nonsilicone‐based materials were ranged between 51 and 114 HU. The voltage dependency was less than 29 HU. Flexible, silicone‐based materials were ranged between 60 and 365 HU. The voltage‐dependent influence was as large as 172 HU. Rigid materials ranged between −69 and 132 HU. The voltage‐dependent influence was <33 HU.
Conclusions
All tested materials may be employed for devices placed in the field of view during CT and MR imaging as no significant artifacts were measured. Moreover, the material selection in CT could be based on the desired visibility of the material depending on the application. Given the wide availability of the tested materials, we expect our results to have a positive impact on the development of devices and robots for image‐guided interventions.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>31587313</pmid><doi>10.1002/mp.13852</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0094-2405 |
| ispartof | Medical physics (Lancaster), 2019-12, Vol.46 (12), p.5488-5498 |
| issn | 0094-2405 2473-4209 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2301890216 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | artifact quantification computed tomography Equipment Design magnetic resonance imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging - instrumentation Mechanical Phenomena medical imaging Printing, Three-Dimensional Robotics soft actuators Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation |
| title | CT and MRI compatibility of flexible 3D‐printed materials for soft actuators and robots used in image‐guided interventions |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T17%3A04%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=CT%20and%20MRI%20compatibility%20of%20flexible%203D%E2%80%90printed%20materials%20for%20soft%20actuators%20and%20robots%20used%20in%20image%E2%80%90guided%20interventions&rft.jtitle=Medical%20physics%20(Lancaster)&rft.au=Neumann,%20Wiebke&rft.date=2019-12&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=5488&rft.epage=5498&rft.pages=5488-5498&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/mp.13852&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2301890216%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2301890216&rft_id=info:pmid/31587313&rfr_iscdi=true |