Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional CT scan for aortic measurement

Journal of Endovascular Therapy

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 531-538

  Dillavou, Ellen D ^a   Buck, David G ^a   Muluk, Satish C ^a   Makaroun, Michel S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b PUH   (United States)

Author keywords

3D reconstruction; Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Aortic measurement; Computed tomography; Endovascular repair; Neck diameter; Sac diameter

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL AORTA; ABDOMINAL AORTA ANEURYSM; BLOOD FLOW; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONFERENCE PAPER; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY; HUMAN; ILIAC ARTERY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

AORTIC ANEURYSM, ABDOMINAL; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 0141702273     PISSN: 15266028     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1583/1545-1550(2003)010<0531:TVTCSF>2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. Lederle FA, Wilson SE, Johnson GR, et al. Variability in measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group. J Vasc Surg. 1995;21:945-952.
2. Jaakkola P, Hippelainen M, Farin P, et al. Interobserver variability in measuring the dimensions of the abdominal aorta: comparison of ultrasound and computed tomography. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1996;12:230-237.
3. Aarts NJM, Schurink GWH, Schultze Kool LJ, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysm measurements for endovascular repair: intra- and interobserver variability of CT measurements. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1999;18:475-480.
4. Lerner LB, Henriques HF, Harris RD. Interactive 3-dimensional computerized tomography reconstruction in evaluation of the living renal donor. J Urol. 1999;161:403-407.
5. White RA, Donayre CE, Walot I, et al. Computed tomography assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm morphology after endograft exclusion. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:S1-10.
6. Broeders IAMJ, Blankensteijn JD, Olree M, et al. Preoperative sizing of grafts for transfemoral endovascular aneurysm management: a prospective comparative study of spiral CT angiography, arteriography, and conventional CT imaging. J Endovasc Surg. 1997;4:252-261.
7. Chaikof EL, Blankensteijn JD, Harris PL, et al. Reporting standards for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35:1048-1060.
8. Singh-Ranger R, McArthur T, Della Corte M, et al. The abdominal aortic aneurysm sac after endoluminal exclusion: a medium-term morphologic follow-up based on volumetric technology. J Vasc Surg. 2000;31:490-500.
9. Hatakeyama T, Shigematsu H, Muto T. Risk factors for rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm based on three-dimensional study. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:453-461.
10. Wever JJ, Blankensteijn JD, Mali WPTM, et al. Maximal aneurysm diameter follow-up is inadequate after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2000;20:177-182.
11. Tillich M, Hill BB, Paik DS, et al. Prediction of aortoiliac stent-graft length: comparison of measurement methods. Radiology. 2001;220:475-483.
12. Wolf YG, Hill BR, Rubin GD, et al. Rate of change in abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter after endovascular repair. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32:108-115.
13. Lederle FA, Wilson SE, Johnson GR, et al. Design of the abdominal aortic aneurysm detection and management (ADAM) study. J Vasc Surg. 1994;20:296-303.
14. The UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Mortality results for randomised controlled trial of early elective surgery or ultrasonographic surveillance for small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Lancet. 1998;352:1649-1655.
15. Rhee RY, Eskandari MK, Zajko AB, et al. Long-term fate of the aneurysmal sac after endoluminal exclusion of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32:689-696.
16. Matsumura JS, Pearce WH, McCarthy WJ, et al. Reduction in aortic aneurysm size: early results after endovascular graft placement. J Vasc Surg. 1997;25:113-123.
17. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.
18. Makaroun MS. The Ancure endocrafting system: an update. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:S129-134.
19. Stanley BM, Semmens JB, Mai Q, et al. Evaluation of patient selection guidelines for endoluminal AAA repair with the Zenith stentgraft: the Australasian experience. J Endovasc Ther. 2001;8:457-464.
20. Buth J, Laheij RJF, on behalf of the EUROSTAR Collaborators. Early complications and endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: report of a multicenter study. J Vasc Surg. 2000;31:134-146.
21. Zarins CK, White RA, Moll FL, et al. The AneuRx stent graft: four-year results and worldwide experience 2000. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:S135-145.
22. Beebe HG, Cronenwett JL, Katzen ET, et al. Results of an aortic endograft trial: impact of device failure beyond 12 months. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:S55-63.
23. Criado FJ, Wilson EP, Fairman RM, et al. Update on the Talent aortic stent-graft: a preliminary report from United States phase I and II trials. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:S146-149.
24. Matsumura JS, Katzen BT, Hollier LH, et al. Update on the bifurcated EXCLUDER endoprosthesis: phase I results. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33: S150-153.
25. Makaroun MS, Chaikof E, Naslund T, et al. Efficacy of a bifurcated endograft versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a reappraisal. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35:203-210.
26. Bertges DJ, Chow K, Wyers MC, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysm size regression after endovascular repair is endograft dependent. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37:716-723.