P-A Barral1,2, M A Demasi-Jacquier3,4, L Bal3,4, V Omnes3,4, A Bartoli5,3, P Piquet3,4, A Jacquier5,3, M Gaudry3,4. 1. Centre Aorte Timone, Hôpital de la Timone, 264 rue saint Pierre, 13385, Marseille Cedex 05, France. Pierre-Antoine.BARRAL@ap-hm.fr. 2. Department of Radiology, Hôpital de la Timone, 264 rue saint Pierre, 13385, Marseille Cedex 05, France. Pierre-Antoine.BARRAL@ap-hm.fr. 3. Department of Radiology, Hôpital de la Timone, 264 rue saint Pierre, 13385, Marseille Cedex 05, France. 4. Department of Vascular Surgery, Hôpital de la Timone, 264 rue saint Pierre, 13385, Marseille Cedex 05, France. 5. Centre Aorte Timone, Hôpital de la Timone, 264 rue saint Pierre, 13385, Marseille Cedex 05, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) image fusion for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) image guidance. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Between December 2016 and March 2018, all eligible patients who underwent TEVAR were prospectively included in a single-center study. Image fusion methods (2D/3D or 3D/3D) were randomly assigned to guide each TEVAR and compared in terms of accuracy, dose area product (DAP), volume of contrast medium injected, fluoroscopy time and procedure time. RESULTS:Thirty-two patients were prospectively included; 18 underwent 2D/3D and 14 underwent3D/3D TEVAR. The 3D/3D method allowed more accurate positioning of the aortic mask on top of the fluoroscopic images (proximal landing zone error vector: 1.7 ± 3.3 mm) than was achieved by the 2D/3D method (6.1 ± 6.1 mm; p = 0.03). The 3D/3D image fusion method was associated with significantly lower DAP than the 2D/3D method (50.5 ± 30.1 Gy cm2 for 3D/3D vs. 99.5 ± 79.1 Gy cm2 for 2D/3D; p = 0.03). The volume of contrast medium injected was significantly lower for the 3D/3D method than for the 2D/3D method (50.6 ± 22.9 ml vs. 98.4 ± 47.9 ml; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Higher image fusion accuracy and lower contrast volume and irradiation dose were observed for 3D/3D image fusion than for 2D/3D during TEVAR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, Randomized trial.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) image fusion for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) image guidance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between December 2016 and March 2018, all eligible patients who underwent TEVAR were prospectively included in a single-center study. Image fusion methods (2D/3D or 3D/3D) were randomly assigned to guide each TEVAR and compared in terms of accuracy, dose area product (DAP), volume of contrast medium injected, fluoroscopy time and procedure time. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were prospectively included; 18 underwent 2D/3D and 14 underwent 3D/3D TEVAR. The 3D/3D method allowed more accurate positioning of the aortic mask on top of the fluoroscopic images (proximal landing zone error vector: 1.7 ± 3.3 mm) than was achieved by the 2D/3D method (6.1 ± 6.1 mm; p = 0.03). The 3D/3D image fusion method was associated with significantly lower DAP than the 2D/3D method (50.5 ± 30.1 Gy cm2 for 3D/3D vs. 99.5 ± 79.1 Gy cm2 for 2D/3D; p = 0.03). The volume of contrast medium injected was significantly lower for the 3D/3D method than for the 2D/3D method (50.6 ± 22.9 ml vs. 98.4 ± 47.9 ml; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Higher image fusion accuracy and lower contrast volume and irradiation dose were observed for 3D/3D image fusion than for 2D/3D during TEVAR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, Randomized trial.