S J Ahn1, B M Kim2, W S Jung1, S H Suh3. 1. From the Department of Radiology (S.J.A., W.S.J., S.H.S.), Gangnam Severance Hospital. 2. Department of Radiology (B.M.K.). 3. From the Department of Radiology (S.J.A., W.S.J., S.H.S.), Gangnam Severance Hospital Severance Institute of Vascular and Metabolic Research (S.H.S.), Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. SUHSH11@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Skull plain films of coiled aneurysms have been used in a limited role, including morphologic comparison of the coil mass. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of skull plain films in patients treated with detachable coils by using quantitative assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 78 pairs of the initial and follow-up skull anteroposterior and lateral images were reviewed independently by 2 neuroradiologists. The largest diameter, the perpendicular diameter, and area of the coil mass were measured separately on plain film, and quantitative changes of parameters were compared between subgroups, which were determined by consensus, depending on the need for retreatment. Subgroup analysis was also performed according to aneurysm size, packing attenuation, and ruptured status. RESULTS: On skull lateral images, mean quantitative changes of the largest diameter (0.53 ± 0.43 mm versus 1.17 ± 0.91 mm, P < .01), the perpendicular diameter (0.56 ± 0.48 mm versus 1.20 ± 1.05 mm, P < .01), and the area of the coil mass (5.21 ± 7.51 mm(2) versus 10.55 ± 10.93 mm(2), P < .02) differed significantly between subgroups. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed quantitative change of the largest diameter (>1.1 mm; sensitivity, 50.0%; specificity, 90.3%), the perpendicular diameter (>.9 mm; sensitivity, 62.5%; specificity, 85.5%), and the area (>8.5 mm(2); sensitivity, 50.0%; specificity, 83.9%) on skull lateral films to be indicative of aneurysm recurrence, and the diagnostic accuracy of these parameters increased significantly in the high-packing-attenuation group. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative measurement of the coil mass by using skull plain lateral images has the potential to predict aneurysm recurrence in follow-up evaluations of intracranial aneurysms with coiling.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Skull plain films of coiled aneurysms have been used in a limited role, including morphologic comparison of the coil mass. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of skull plain films in patients treated with detachable coils by using quantitative assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 78 pairs of the initial and follow-up skull anteroposterior and lateral images were reviewed independently by 2 neuroradiologists. The largest diameter, the perpendicular diameter, and area of the coil mass were measured separately on plain film, and quantitative changes of parameters were compared between subgroups, which were determined by consensus, depending on the need for retreatment. Subgroup analysis was also performed according to aneurysm size, packing attenuation, and ruptured status. RESULTS: On skull lateral images, mean quantitative changes of the largest diameter (0.53 ± 0.43 mm versus 1.17 ± 0.91 mm, P < .01), the perpendicular diameter (0.56 ± 0.48 mm versus 1.20 ± 1.05 mm, P < .01), and the area of the coil mass (5.21 ± 7.51 mm(2) versus 10.55 ± 10.93 mm(2), P < .02) differed significantly between subgroups. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed quantitative change of the largest diameter (>1.1 mm; sensitivity, 50.0%; specificity, 90.3%), the perpendicular diameter (>.9 mm; sensitivity, 62.5%; specificity, 85.5%), and the area (>8.5 mm(2); sensitivity, 50.0%; specificity, 83.9%) on skull lateral films to be indicative of aneurysm recurrence, and the diagnostic accuracy of these parameters increased significantly in the high-packing-attenuation group. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative measurement of the coil mass by using skull plain lateral images has the potential to predict aneurysm recurrence in follow-up evaluations of intracranial aneurysms with coiling.
Authors: So Yeon Kim; Seung Soo Lee; Jae Ho Byun; Seong Ho Park; Jeong Kon Kim; Bumwoo Park; Namkug Kim; Moon-Gyu Lee Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrew Molyneux; Richard Kerr; Irene Stratton; Peter Sandercock; Mike Clarke; Julia Shrimpton; Rury Holman Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-10-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Richard I Farb; Shudeshna Nag; James N Scott; Robert A Willinsky; Thomas R Marotta; Walter J Montanera; George Tomlinson; Karel G Terbrugge Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2005-06-10 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Menno Sluzewski; Willem Jan van Rooij; Marian J Slob; Javier Oliván Bescós; Cornelis H Slump; Douwe Wijnalda Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jean Raymond; François Guilbert; Alain Weill; Stavros A Georganos; Louis Juravsky; Anick Lambert; Julie Lamoureux; Miguel Chagnon; Daniel Roy Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-05-29 Impact factor: 7.914