European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery · 2013
Accuracy and variability of semiautomatic centerline analysis versus manual aortic measurement techniques for TEVAR.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Müller-Eschner M, Rengier F, Partovi S, Weber T F, Kopp-Schneider A, Geisbüsch P, Kauczor H-U, von Tengg-Kobligk H
Аннотация
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.
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.