What imaging studies are necessary for abdominal aortic endograft sizing? A prospective blinded study using conventional computed tomography, aortography, and three-dimensional computed tomography

Mary V. Parker, Sean D. O'Donnell*, Audrey S. Chang, Chatt A. Johnson, David L. Gillespie, James M. Goff, Todd E. Rasmussen, Norman M. Rich

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

64 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: Preoperative imaging modalities for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) include conventional computed tomography (CT), aortography with a marking catheter, and three-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT). Although each technique has advantages, to date no study has compared in a prospective manner the reproducibility of measurements and impact on graft selection of all three modalities. The objective of this study was to determine the most useful imaging studies in planning EVAR. Methods: Twenty patients being considered for EVAR were enrolled prospectively to undergo a conventional CT scan and aortography. The CT scans were then reconstructed into 3D images using Preview Treatment Planning Software (Medical Media Systems, West Lebanon, NH). Four measurements of diameter and six of length were made from each modality in determining the proper graft for EVAR. Results: Measurements from all three modalities were reproducible with intraobserver correlation coefficients of 0.79 to 1.0 for aortography, 0.87 to 1.0 for CT, and 0.96 to 1.0 for 3D CT. Measurements between observers were also similar from each modality; interobserver correlations were 0.70 to 0.97 for aortography, 0.76 to 0.97 for CT, and 0.73 to 0.99 for 3D CT. Significant differences (P <. 01) in diameter measurements were noted at D2 with aortography compared with 3D CT, whereas differences in length measurements were found between CT and 3D CT at L4 (nonaneurysmal right iliac) (P <. 01). The correlation between CT and 3D CT for most length measurements was acceptable (0.63 to 1.0). Aortography for diameters correlated poorly (0.35 to 0.67) with 3D CT. When the endograft selected by aortography/CT or 3D CT alone was compared with the actual endograft used, there was agreement in 11 of 11 patients when adjusted for ± one size in diameter or length. Conclusion: Reproducible and comparable measures of diameter and length can be obtained by each of three imaging modalities available for endograft sizing. As a single imaging modality, 3D CT appears to have the best correlation for both diameters and lengths; however, the difference is not sufficient enough to alter endograft selection. Three-dimensional CT may be reserved for challenging aortic anatomy where small differences in measurements would affect patient or graft selection for EVAR.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)199-205
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Volume41
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2005

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'What imaging studies are necessary for abdominal aortic endograft sizing? A prospective blinded study using conventional computed tomography, aortography, and three-dimensional computed tomography'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this