BACKGROUND: We have successfully applied sequential volumetric analysis of abdominal aortic aneurysms to exclude endoleak in patients who have an aortic endostent. This study compared the effect of variable operator experience on volumetric calculation accuracy. METHODS: Four operators with different experience levels calculated abdominal aneurysm volumes in 10 patients at two different times (>/= 1 week apart). The four reviewers were ranked as having a high level of experience (one full-time laboratory worker specializing in three dimensions with 3 years of experience), a moderate level of experience (one part-time laboratory worker specializing in three dimensions/computed tomographic technician with 1 year of part-time experience), and a low level of experience (two individuals taught volumetric measurements for the purposes of this study: a fellow in abdominal imaging and a computed tomographic technician). All volumes were calculated with a GE Advantage 4.0 workstation (General Electric, Waukesha, WI, USA). RESULTS: Mean aneurysm volume and volume difference between two measurements were calculated for four operators. The average (standard deviation) percent volume differences were 1.2% (0.2%) for the experienced reader, 3.2% (0.3%) for the moderately experienced reader, and 6.0% (1.0%) and 5.8% (1.1%) for the two readers with light experience. Differences between averages were statistically significant (p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: We have defined a percent margin of error for aortic aneurysm volume measurement and have shown a direct correlate to level of experience. Diagnosis of endoleak based on aneurysm volume enlargement on serial scans needs to account for the level of operator experience.
BACKGROUND: We have successfully applied sequential volumetric analysis of abdominal aortic aneurysms to exclude endoleak in patients who have an aortic endostent. This study compared the effect of variable operator experience on volumetric calculation accuracy. METHODS: Four operators with different experience levels calculated abdominal aneurysm volumes in 10 patients at two different times (>/= 1 week apart). The four reviewers were ranked as having a high level of experience (one full-time laboratory worker specializing in three dimensions with 3 years of experience), a moderate level of experience (one part-time laboratory worker specializing in three dimensions/computed tomographic technician with 1 year of part-time experience), and a low level of experience (two individuals taught volumetric measurements for the purposes of this study: a fellow in abdominal imaging and a computed tomographic technician). All volumes were calculated with a GE Advantage 4.0 workstation (General Electric, Waukesha, WI, USA). RESULTS: Mean aneurysm volume and volume difference between two measurements were calculated for four operators. The average (standard deviation) percent volume differences were 1.2% (0.2%) for the experienced reader, 3.2% (0.3%) for the moderately experienced reader, and 6.0% (1.0%) and 5.8% (1.1%) for the two readers with light experience. Differences between averages were statistically significant (p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: We have defined a percent margin of error for aortic aneurysm volume measurement and have shown a direct correlate to level of experience. Diagnosis of endoleak based on aneurysm volume enlargement on serial scans needs to account for the level of operator experience.
Authors: A Canì; E Cotta; C Recaldini; D Lumia; F Fontana; G Carrafiello; V Colli; C Fugazzola Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-06-04 Impact factor: 3.469