Accuracy and variability of semiautomatic centerline analysis versus manual aortic measurement techniques for TEVAR
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 o...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article (Journal) |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
11 January 2013
|
| In: |
European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery
Year: 2013, Volume: 45, Issue: 3, Pages: 241-247 |
| ISSN: | 1532-2165 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.ejvs.2012.12.003 |
| Online Access: | Verlag, lizenzpflichtig, Volltext: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2012.12.003 Verlag, lizenzpflichtig, Volltext: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078588412007964 
|
| Author Notes: | M. Müller-Eschner, F. Rengier, S. Partovi, T.F. Weber, A. Kopp-Schneider, P. Geisbüsch, H.-U. Kauczor, H. von Tengg-Kobligk |
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Gesehen am 22.06.2021 |
| Physical Description: | Online Resource |
| ISSN: | 1532-2165 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.ejvs.2012.12.003 |