Abstract
Objectives: Correct sizing of endoprostheses used for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms is important to prevent endoleaks and migration. Sizing requires several steps and each step introduces a possible sizing error. The goal of this study was to investigate the magnitude of these errors compared to the golden standard: a vessel phantom. This study focuses on the errors in sizing with three different brands of computed tomography angiography scanners in combination with three reconstruction software packages.
Methods: Three phantoms with a different diameter, altitude and azimuth were scanned with three computed tomography scanners: Toshiba Aquilion 64-slice, Philips Brilliance iCT 256-slice and Siemens Somatom Sensation 64-slice. The phantom diameters were determined in the stretched view after central lumen line reconstruction by three observers using Simbionix PROcedure Rehearsal Studio, 3mensio and TeraRecon planning software. The observers, all novices in sizing endoprostheses using planning software, measured 108 slices each. Two senior vascular surgeons set the tolerated error margin of sizing on ±1.0?mm.
Results: In total, 11.3% of the measurements (73/648) were outside the set margins of ±1.0 mm from the phantom diameter, with significant differences between the scanner types (14.8%, 12.1%, 6.9% for the Siemens scanner, Philips scanner and Toshiba scanner, respectively, p-value?=?0.032), but not between the software packages (8.3%, 11.1%, 14.4%, p-value?=?0.141) or the observers (10.6%, 9.7%, 13.4%, p-value?=?0.448).
Conclusions: It can be concluded that the errors in sizing were independent of the used software packages, but the phantoms scanned with Siemens scanner were significantly more measured incorrectly than the phantoms scanned with the Toshiba scanner. Consequently, awareness on the type of computed tomography scanner and computed tomography scanner setting is necessary, especially in complex abdominal aortic aneurysms sizing for fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair if appropriate the sizing is of upmost importance.
Methods: Three phantoms with a different diameter, altitude and azimuth were scanned with three computed tomography scanners: Toshiba Aquilion 64-slice, Philips Brilliance iCT 256-slice and Siemens Somatom Sensation 64-slice. The phantom diameters were determined in the stretched view after central lumen line reconstruction by three observers using Simbionix PROcedure Rehearsal Studio, 3mensio and TeraRecon planning software. The observers, all novices in sizing endoprostheses using planning software, measured 108 slices each. Two senior vascular surgeons set the tolerated error margin of sizing on ±1.0?mm.
Results: In total, 11.3% of the measurements (73/648) were outside the set margins of ±1.0 mm from the phantom diameter, with significant differences between the scanner types (14.8%, 12.1%, 6.9% for the Siemens scanner, Philips scanner and Toshiba scanner, respectively, p-value?=?0.032), but not between the software packages (8.3%, 11.1%, 14.4%, p-value?=?0.141) or the observers (10.6%, 9.7%, 13.4%, p-value?=?0.448).
Conclusions: It can be concluded that the errors in sizing were independent of the used software packages, but the phantoms scanned with Siemens scanner were significantly more measured incorrectly than the phantoms scanned with the Toshiba scanner. Consequently, awareness on the type of computed tomography scanner and computed tomography scanner setting is necessary, especially in complex abdominal aortic aneurysms sizing for fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair if appropriate the sizing is of upmost importance.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 198-202 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Vascular |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 18 Aug 2017 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Apr 2018 |
Keywords
- Aneurysm
- Endovascular aneurysm repair
- Diameter
- Stent-graft
- Endoleak
- endoleak
- stent-graft
- diameter
- endovascular aneurysm repair