Purpose: To validate a new 2D-3D registration method of fusion imaging during aortic repair in a system prepared only for 3D-3D registration and to compare radiation doses and accuracy. Materials and Methods: The study involved 189 patients, including 94 patients (median age 70 years; 85 men) who underwent abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with 2D-3D fusion on an Artis zee imaging system and 95 EVAR patients (median age 70 years; 81 men) from a prior study who had 3D-3D registration done using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). For the 2D-3D registration, an offline CBCT of the empty operating table was imported into the intraoperative dataset and superimposed on the preoperative computed tomography angiogram (CTA). Then 2 intraoperative single-frame 2D images of the skeleton were aligned with the patient’s skeleton on the preoperative CTA to complete the registration process. A digital subtraction angiogram was done to correct any misalignment of the aortic CTA volume. Values are given as the median [interquartile range (IQR) Q1, Q3]. Results: The 2D-3D registration had an accuracy of 4.0 mm (IQR 3.0, 5.0) after bone matching compared with the final correction with DSA (78% within 5 mm). By applying the 2D-3D protocol the radiation exposure (dose area product) from the registration of the fusion image was significantly reduced compared with the 3D-3D registration [1.12 Gy∙cm2 (IQR 0.41, 2.14) vs 43.4 Gy∙cm2 (IQR 37.1, 49.0), respectively; p<0.001). Conclusion: The new 2D-3D registration protocol based on 2 single-frame images avoids an intraoperative CBCT and can be used for fusion imaging registration in a system originally designed for 3D-3D only. This 2D-3D registration protocol is accurate and leads to a significant reduction in radiation exposure.
PatelRSweetingMJPowellJT, et al. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in 15-years’ follow-up of the UK endovascular aneurysm repair trial 1 (EVAR trial 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388:2366–2374.
2.
RajaramanPDoodyMMYuCL, et al. Cancer risks in U.S. radiologic technologists working with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, 1994-2008. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:1101–1108.
3.
El-SayedTPatelASChoJS, et al. Radiation-induced DNA damage in operators performing endovascular aortic repair. Circulation. 2017;136:2406–2416.
4.
HertaultAMaurelBSobocinskiJ, et al. Impact of hybrid rooms with image fusion on radiation exposure during endovascular aortic repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;48:382–390.
5.
DiasNVBillbergHSonessonB, et al. The effects of combining fusion imaging, low-frequency pulsed fluoroscopy, and low-concentration contrast agent during endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2016;63:1147–1155.
6.
McNallyMMScaliSTFeezorRJ, et al. Three-dimensional fusion computed tomography decreases radiation exposure, procedure time, and contrast use during fenestrated endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:309–316.
7.
DijkstraMLEagletonMJGreenbergRK, et al. Intraoperative C-arm cone-beam computed tomography in fenestrated/branched aortic endografting. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:583–590.
8.
SchulzCJSchmittMBocklerD, et al. Fusion imaging to support endovascular aneurysm repair using 3D-3D registration. J Endovasc Ther. 2016;23:791–799.
9.
MaurelBHertaultAGonzalezTM, et al. Evaluation of visceral artery displacement by endograft delivery system insertion. J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21:339–347.
10.
SteuweAGeisbuschPSchulzCJ, et al. Comparison of radiation exposure associated with intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography and follow-up multidetector computed tomography angiography for evaluating endovascular aneurysm repairs. J Endovasc Ther. 2016;23:583–592.
11.
KauffmannCDouaneFTherasseE, et al. Source of errors and accuracy of a two-dimensional/three-dimensional fusion road map for endovascular aneurysm repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26:544–551.
