A R Al-Schameri1, G Baltsavias2, P Winkler3, M Lunzer3, M Kral3, L Machegger4, F Weymayr4, S Emich3, C Sherif5, B Richling3. 1. From the Departments of Neurosurgery (A.R.A.-S., P.W., M.L., M.K., S.E., B.R.) a.al-schameri@salk.at. 2. Department of Neuroradiology (G.B.), University Hospitals of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. From the Departments of Neurosurgery (A.R.A.-S., P.W., M.L., M.K., S.E., B.R.). 4. Neuroradiology (L.M., F.W.), Paracelsus Private Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 5. Department of Neurosurgery (C.S.), Krankenanstalt Rudolfstiftung, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The computerized occlusion rating to estimate angiographic occlusion of embolized aneurysms is superior to the subjective occlusion rating. In this study, we compared the 2 methods in the analysis of aneurysms clipped after subarachnoid hemorrhage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pre- and postoperative angiographic images (DSA) of 95 selected patients were analyzed and stratified in 4 grades (grade 0 for 100%, grade I for <99%-90%, grade II for <89%-70%, grade III for <70% occlusion) by using the subjective (angiographic) occlusion rating and the computerized (angiographic) occlusion rating. For the subjective occlusion rating, the occlusion rate was estimated; for the computerized occlusion rating, the "occluded" and "nonoccluded" aneurysm areas were automatically calculated in square millimeters after outlining the ideal occlusion line. RESULTS: With the subjective occlusion rating, 75 (78.9%), 12 (12.6%), 7 (7.4%), and 1 (1.1%) and with the computerized occlusion rating 45 (47.4%), 24 (25.3%), 20 (21.0%), and 6 (6.3%) patients had aneurysms stratified to grades 0, I, II and III, respectively. The interobserver variation was significant with the subjective occlusion rating but not with the computerized occlusion rating. The subjective occlusion rating overestimated aneurysm occlusion in 30 (31.6%) patients. Mean values were the following: subjective occlusion rating of 97.5 ± 6.3% and computerized occlusion rating of 93.5 ± 9.7%; P = < .001. No patient rebled, and 4 patients underwent retreatment during 36 ± 38.9 months; the predictive value (log-rank, Kaplan-Meier) of the subjective and computerized occlusion ratings with respect to retreatment was highly significant for both methods (subjective occlusion rating: χ(2), 29.65; P < .001; computerized occlusion rating: χ(2), 35.57, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The 2 methods showed remarkable differences in the estimation of the angiographic occlusion rates of clipped aneurysms. The clearly lower interobserver variation of the computerized versus subjective occlusion rating may indicate a superiority of the computerized occlusion rating.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The computerized occlusion rating to estimate angiographic occlusion of embolized aneurysms is superior to the subjective occlusion rating. In this study, we compared the 2 methods in the analysis of aneurysms clipped after subarachnoid hemorrhage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pre- and postoperative angiographic images (DSA) of 95 selected patients were analyzed and stratified in 4 grades (grade 0 for 100%, grade I for <99%-90%, grade II for <89%-70%, grade III for <70% occlusion) by using the subjective (angiographic) occlusion rating and the computerized (angiographic) occlusion rating. For the subjective occlusion rating, the occlusion rate was estimated; for the computerized occlusion rating, the "occluded" and "nonoccluded" aneurysm areas were automatically calculated in square millimeters after outlining the ideal occlusion line. RESULTS: With the subjective occlusion rating, 75 (78.9%), 12 (12.6%), 7 (7.4%), and 1 (1.1%) and with the computerized occlusion rating 45 (47.4%), 24 (25.3%), 20 (21.0%), and 6 (6.3%) patients had aneurysms stratified to grades 0, I, II and III, respectively. The interobserver variation was significant with the subjective occlusion rating but not with the computerized occlusion rating. The subjective occlusion rating overestimated aneurysm occlusion in 30 (31.6%) patients. Mean values were the following: subjective occlusion rating of 97.5 ± 6.3% and computerized occlusion rating of 93.5 ± 9.7%; P = < .001. No patient rebled, and 4 patients underwent retreatment during 36 ± 38.9 months; the predictive value (log-rank, Kaplan-Meier) of the subjective and computerized occlusion ratings with respect to retreatment was highly significant for both methods (subjective occlusion rating: χ(2), 29.65; P < .001; computerized occlusion rating: χ(2), 35.57, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The 2 methods showed remarkable differences in the estimation of the angiographic occlusion rates of clipped aneurysms. The clearly lower interobserver variation of the computerized versus subjective occlusion rating may indicate a superiority of the computerized occlusion rating.
Authors: C Sherif; A Gruber; E Schuster; E Lahnsteiner; D Gibson; H Milavec; B Feichter; M Wiesender; C Dorfer; M Krawagna; A Di Ieva; G Bavinszki; E Knosp Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Claiborne Johnston; Christopher F Dowd; Randall T Higashida; Michael T Lawton; Gary R Duckwiler; Daryl R Gress Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-11-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Lucas Elijovich; Randall T Higashida; Michael T Lawton; Gary Duckwiler; Steven Giannotta; S Claiborne Johnston Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-03-06 Impact factor: 7.914