BACKGROUND: Compared with open surgery, imaging is considered to be important for planning and device selection of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The present study evaluated the usefulness of a 3-dimensional (3D)-computed tomography (CT) workstation in planning EVAR. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective study was conducted in 8 patients who underwent EVAR using Zenith endograft between February and August 2007. Endograft size and optimized deployment projection were decided using a 3D-CT workstation. The primary endpoint was defined as successful deployment of a same size endograft as preoperatively selected without type I or III endoleak or inadvertent arterial occlusion. The following parameters were investigated: (a) incidence of use of an alternative endograft; (b) prevalence of type I or III endoleak; and (c) distance from lowest renal artery to tip of graft. Successful deployment of endograft was achieved in all 8 patients. Use of alternative endograft or type I or III endoleak was not detected in 8 patients. Distance from the lowest renal artery to the tip of the graft was 2.8mm. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment using a 3D-CT workstation appears to allow accurate endograft selection and precise deployment of the Zenith endograft without type I or III endoleak, even in institutes with a small number of patients.
BACKGROUND: Compared with open surgery, imaging is considered to be important for planning and device selection of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The present study evaluated the usefulness of a 3-dimensional (3D)-computed tomography (CT) workstation in planning EVAR. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective study was conducted in 8 patients who underwent EVAR using Zenith endograft between February and August 2007. Endograft size and optimized deployment projection were decided using a 3D-CT workstation. The primary endpoint was defined as successful deployment of a same size endograft as preoperatively selected without type I or III endoleak or inadvertent arterial occlusion. The following parameters were investigated: (a) incidence of use of an alternative endograft; (b) prevalence of type I or III endoleak; and (c) distance from lowest renal artery to tip of graft. Successful deployment of endograft was achieved in all 8 patients. Use of alternative endograft or type I or III endoleak was not detected in 8 patients. Distance from the lowest renal artery to the tip of the graft was 2.8mm. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment using a 3D-CT workstation appears to allow accurate endograft selection and precise deployment of the Zenith endograft without type I or III endoleak, even in institutes with a small number of patients.