A phantom study for the comparison of different brands of computed tomography scanners and software packages for endovascular aneurysm repair sizing and planning

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.

Keywords

Aneurysm endovascular aneurysm repair diameter stent-graft endoleak

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

De Bruin

Baas

Buth

et al.

Long-term outcome of open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1881–1889.

Greenhalgh

Brown

Powell

et al.

Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1863–1871.

Iezzi

Dattesi

Pirro

et al.

CT Angiography in stent-graft sizing: impact of using inner vs. outer wall measurements of aortic neck diameters. J Endovasc Ther 2011; 18: 280–288.

Parker

O’donnell

Chang

et al.

What imaging studies are necessary for abdominal aortic endograft sizing? A prospective blinded study using conventional computed tomography, aortography, and three-dimensional computed tomography. J Vasc Surg 2005; 41: 199–205.

Truijers

Resch

Van Den Berg

et al.

Endovascular aneurysm repair: state-of-art imaging techniques for preoperative planning and surveillance. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2009; 50: 423–438.

Ghatwary

Patterson

Karthikesalingam

et al.

A systematic review of protocols for the three-dimensional morphologic assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms using computed tomographic angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2011; 36: 14–24.

Rengier

Weber

Partovi

et al.

Reliability of semiautomatic centerline analysis versus manual aortic measurement techniques for TEVAR among non-experts. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 42: 324–331.

Mora

Marcus

Barbe

et al.

Measurement of maximum diameter of native abdominal aortic aneurysm by angio-CT: reproducibility is better with the semi-automated method. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2014; 47: 139–150.

Velu

Groot Jebbink

de Vries

et al.

Validation of the Simbionix PROcedure Rehearsal Studio sizing module: a comparison of software for endovascular aneurysm repair sizing and planning. Vascular 2017; 25: 80–85.

10.

Sande

EPS

Martinsen

ACT

Hole

et al.

Interphantom and interscanner variations for Hounsfield units – establishment of reference values for HU in a commercial QA phantom. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 5123–5135.

11.

Corriere

Islam

Craven

et al.

Influence of computed tomography angiography reconstruction software on anatomic measurements and endograft component selection for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2014; 59: 1224–1231.

12.

ACR-SPR practice parameter for the performance of computed tomography (1076; CT) of the abdomen and computed tomography (CT) of the pelvis. American College of Radiology: Practice Parameters and Technical Standards, 2016; (Revised 2008): 1–15.

13.

Hsieh

Computed tomography: principles, design, artifacts, and recent advances. Bellingham, WA: The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2003.

14.

Kalender

WA.

Computed tomography: fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications. 3rd ed. Erlangen: Publicis Publishing, 2011.