OBJECTIVES: This study aims to test whether inter-observer variability and time of diameter measurements for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are improved by semiautomatic centerline analysis compared to manual assessment. METHODS: Preoperative computed tomography (CT) angiographies of 30 patients with thoracic aortic disease (mean age 66.8 ± 11.6 years, 23 males) were retrospectively analysed by two blinded experts in vascular radiology. Maximum aortic diameters at three positions relevant to TEVAR were assessed (P1, distal to left common carotid artery; P2, distal to left subclavian artery; and P3, proximal to coeliac trunk) using three measurement techniques: manual axial slices (axial), manual double-oblique multiplanar reformations (MPRs) and semiautomatic centerline analysis. RESULTS: Diameter measurements by both centerline analysis and the axial technique did not significantly differ from MPR (p = 0.17 and p = 0.37). Total deviation index for 0.9 was for P1 2.7 mm (axial), 3.7 mm (MPR), 1.8 mm (centerline); for P2 2.0 mm (axial), 3.6 mm (MPR), 1.8 mm (centerline); and for P3 3.0 mm (axial), 3.5 mm (MPR), 2.5 mm (centerline). Measurement time using centerline analysis was significantly shorter than for assessment by MPR. CONCLUSIONS: Centerline analysis provides the least variable and fast diameter measurements in TEVAR patients with the same accuracy as the current reference standard MPR.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to test whether inter-observer variability and time of diameter measurements for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) are improved by semiautomatic centerline analysis compared to manual assessment. METHODS: Preoperative computed tomography (CT) angiographies of 30 patients with thoracic aortic disease (mean age 66.8 ± 11.6 years, 23 males) were retrospectively analysed by two blinded experts in vascular radiology. Maximum aortic diameters at three positions relevant to TEVAR were assessed (P1, distal to left common carotid artery; P2, distal to left subclavian artery; and P3, proximal to coeliac trunk) using three measurement techniques: manual axial slices (axial), manual double-oblique multiplanar reformations (MPRs) and semiautomatic centerline analysis. RESULTS: Diameter measurements by both centerline analysis and the axial technique did not significantly differ from MPR (p = 0.17 and p = 0.37). Total deviation index for 0.9 was for P1 2.7 mm (axial), 3.7 mm (MPR), 1.8 mm (centerline); for P2 2.0 mm (axial), 3.6 mm (MPR), 1.8 mm (centerline); and for P3 3.0 mm (axial), 3.5 mm (MPR), 2.5 mm (centerline). Measurement time using centerline analysis was significantly shorter than for assessment by MPR. CONCLUSIONS: Centerline analysis provides the least variable and fast diameter measurements in TEVAR patients with the same accuracy as the current reference standard MPR.
Authors: Xinpei Gao; Pieter H Kitslaar; Ricardo P J Budde; Shengxian Tu; Michiel A de Graaf; Liang Xu; Bo Xu; Arthur J H A Scholte; Jouke Dijkstra; Johan H C Reiber Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-05-21 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Maurice Pradella; Thomas Weikert; Jonathan I Sperl; Rainer Kärgel; Joshy Cyriac; Rita Achermann; Alexander W Sauter; Jens Bremerich; Bram Stieltjes; Philipp Brantner; Gregor Sommer Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-10
Authors: Prachi P Agarwal; Peter S Liu; Peter Hagan; Anna M Booher; Kuanwong Watcharotone; Leslie E Quint Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Yunus Ahmed; Nitesh Nama; Ignas B Houben; Joost A van Herwaarden; Frans L Moll; David M Williams; C Alberto Figueroa; Himanshu J Patel; Nicholas S Burris Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2021-09-11 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Maurice Pradella; Rita Achermann; Jonathan I Sperl; Rainer Kärgel; Saikiran Rapaka; Joshy Cyriac; Shan Yang; Gregor Sommer; Bram Stieltjes; Jens Bremerich; Philipp Brantner; Alexander W Sauter Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-08-22
Authors: Evelien E de Vries; Vanessa E C Pourier; Constance J H C M van Laarhoven; Evert J Vonken; Joost A van Herwaarden; Gert J de Borst Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 2.804