Dual-Energy Low-keV or Single-Energy Low-kV CT for Endoleak Detection?: A 6-Reader Study in an Aortic Aneurysm Phantom
Objectives The aim of this study was to compare image quality, conspicuity, and endoleak detection between single-energy low-kV images (SEIs) and dual-energy low-keV virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs+) in computed tomography angiography of the aorta after endovascular repair. Materials and Methods An abdominal aortic aneurysm phantom simulating 36 endoleaks (2 densities; diameters: 2, 4, and 6 mm) in a medium- and large-sized patient was used. Each size was scanned using single-energy at 80 kVp (A) and 100 kVp (B), and dual-energy at 80/Sn150kVp for the medium (C) and 90/Sn150kVp for the large size (D). VMIs+ at 40 keV and 50 keV were reconstructed from protocols C and D. Radiation dose was 3 mGy for the medium and 6 mGy for the large size. Objective image quality and normalized noise power spectrum were determined. Subjective image quality, conspicuity, and sensitivity for endoleaks were independently assessed by 6 radiologists. Sensitivity was compared using Marascuilo procedure and Fisher exact test. Conspicuities were compared using Wilcoxon-matched pairs test, analysis of variance, and Tukey test. Results The contrast-to-noise-ratio of the aorta was significantly higher for VMI+ compared with SEI (P
ConclusionsThis study identified the sources of fusion error after insertion of rigid material during EVAR. As the sharpest angulation between aneurysm neck and sac increases, the overall accuracy of the fusion might be affected.
The objective of this study is to determine the utility of the 1-month CTA following elective EVAR and determine if initial surveillance at 6-month CTA is appropriate.
The objective of this study is to determine the utility of the one month CTA following elective EVAR and determine if initial surveillance at six-months CTA is appropriate.
ConclusionsOur limited experience seems to reveal that a cutoff of ≤ 20 mm for AB diameter, as in current guidelines, is ineffective in predicting outcomes after EVAR.
Abstract BACKGROUND: People with abdominal aortic aneurysm who receive endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) need lifetime surveillance to detect potential endoleaks. Endoleak is defined as persistent blood flow within the aneurysm sac following EVAR. Computed tomography (CT) angiography is considered the reference standard for endoleak surveillance. Colour duplex ultrasound (CDUS) and contrast-enhanced CDUS (CE-CDUS) are less invasive but considered less accurate than CT. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of colour duplex ultrasound (CDUS) and contrast-enhanced-colour duplex ultrasound (CE-CDUS)...
Conclusion: ACS was occurred with a severe complication (acute intestinal necrosis) in a very short period, which is very rare regarding to this condition after EVAR, it reminds us the severe result of ACS and more methods to prevent it happened after surgical management.
Discussion EVAR is feasible with a hostile neck AAA, even in a ruptured AAA. In large AAA, one should consider an overlap larger than suggested in the instructions for use. PMID: 27385140 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Conclusions: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with unilateral internal iliac artery embolization and contralateral external-to-internal artery bypass is feasible with a relatively low risk. It is a safe procedure and reduces the incidence of postoperative complications.
Conclusion: Treatment of type 2 endoleaks using embolization by micronavigation is an effective and safe method and should be considered as a treatment option for this complication after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Contexto: O reparo endovascular se estabeleceu como uma modalidade segura e efetiva no tratamento do Aneurisma de Aorta Abdominal. Uma das principais complicações deste tipo de tratamento é o Vazamento ou Endoleak, sendo o do tipo 2 o mais frequente deles. Objetivo: Fazer uma breve revisão de literatura e avaliar a segurança e a efetividade da emboliza&c...
Conclusions EVAR patients received high radiation doses and the excess cancer risk attributable to radiation exposure is not negligible. The unenhanced scan and the venous phase of the MDCT angiography could have been omitted without compromising the utility of the examination and with a significant reduction of doses and associated risks.