Accuracy and Variability of Semiautomatic Centerline Analysis versus Manual Aortic Measurement Techniques for TEVAR

作者：Mueller Eschner M; Rengier F^*; Partovi S; Weber T F; Kopp Schneider A; Gei**uesch P; Kauczor H U; von Tengg Kobligk H

来源：European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 2013, 45(3): 241-247.

DOI：10.1016/j.ejvs.2012.12.003

• Thoracic aorta
• Computed tomography
• Three-dimensional imaging
• Computer-assisted image analysis
• Endovascular

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.

• 出版日期2013-3