Two-dimensional-three-dimensional registration for fusion imaging is noninferior to three-dimensional- three-dimensional registration in infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair.
Aged
Angiography, Digital Subtraction
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal
/ diagnostic imaging
Benchmarking
Blood Vessel Prosthesis
Computed Tomography Angiography
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Endovascular Procedures
Female
Fluoroscopy
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Intraoperative Care
Male
Multimodal Imaging
Radiation Exposure
Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
Radiography, Interventional
Stents
Abdominal
Aortic aneurysm
Computer-assisted
Endovascular procedures
Image processing
Journal
Journal of vascular surgery
ISSN: 1097-6809
Titre abrégé: J Vasc Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8407742
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
received:
04
12
2018
accepted:
11
02
2019
pubmed:
31
5
2019
medline:
4
6
2020
entrez:
1
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Fusion imaging is a tool for intraoperative three-dimensional (3D) guidance in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In many aortic centers, the registration for location is based on an intraoperative 3D dataset acquired by means of cone-beam computed tomography (3D-3D registration). Another registration method is based on two two-dimensional (2D) images (lateral and posteroanterior) acquired with the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy for registration with a computed tomographic angiogram (2D-3D registration). The aim of the present study was to compare 2D-3D registration with 3D-3D registration regarding noninferiority in accuracy and to describe radiation exposure and ease of use of both modalities. From December 2014 to September 2015, 50 sequentially enrolled patients received EVAR with the use of fusion imaging using 2D-3D registration. No adjustments were made until the first angiography with inserted stent graft. The deviation of fusion imaging to the actual position of the lower renal artery compared with digital subtraction angiography was measured. A historic cohort of 101 patients treated with EVAR and fusion imaging with 3D-3D registration (3D-3D cohort) served as the control group for this study. Craniocaudal deviation did not differ significantly (4.6 ± 4.4 mm in the 2D-3D cohort vs 3.6 ± 3.9 mm in the 3D-3D cohort; P = .17). The difference of the means was 1.05 mm with a 95% confidence interval of -2.45 to 0.34 and a P value for the noninferiority test of .0249, indicating that 2D-3D registration was noninferior in terms of a margin of δ = 2.5 mm. 2D-3D registration was significantly faster with significantly less additional radiation necessary: 0.45 ± 0.28 vs 45.7 ± 9.1 Gy·cm Fusion imaging during EVAR with the use of 2D-3D registration is feasible in routine EVAR. Our findings of two consecutive cohorts with the same clinical, hardware, and software setup used for the procedures underscore that the accuracy of 2D-3D registration is noninferior to that of a 3D-3D registration workflow, with advantages in terms of radiation exposure, intraoperative time demand, and ease of use.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Fusion imaging is a tool for intraoperative three-dimensional (3D) guidance in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In many aortic centers, the registration for location is based on an intraoperative 3D dataset acquired by means of cone-beam computed tomography (3D-3D registration). Another registration method is based on two two-dimensional (2D) images (lateral and posteroanterior) acquired with the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy for registration with a computed tomographic angiogram (2D-3D registration). The aim of the present study was to compare 2D-3D registration with 3D-3D registration regarding noninferiority in accuracy and to describe radiation exposure and ease of use of both modalities.
METHODS
From December 2014 to September 2015, 50 sequentially enrolled patients received EVAR with the use of fusion imaging using 2D-3D registration. No adjustments were made until the first angiography with inserted stent graft. The deviation of fusion imaging to the actual position of the lower renal artery compared with digital subtraction angiography was measured. A historic cohort of 101 patients treated with EVAR and fusion imaging with 3D-3D registration (3D-3D cohort) served as the control group for this study.
RESULTS
Craniocaudal deviation did not differ significantly (4.6 ± 4.4 mm in the 2D-3D cohort vs 3.6 ± 3.9 mm in the 3D-3D cohort; P = .17). The difference of the means was 1.05 mm with a 95% confidence interval of -2.45 to 0.34 and a P value for the noninferiority test of .0249, indicating that 2D-3D registration was noninferior in terms of a margin of δ = 2.5 mm. 2D-3D registration was significantly faster with significantly less additional radiation necessary: 0.45 ± 0.28 vs 45.7 ± 9.1 Gy·cm
CONCLUSIONS
Fusion imaging during EVAR with the use of 2D-3D registration is feasible in routine EVAR. Our findings of two consecutive cohorts with the same clinical, hardware, and software setup used for the procedures underscore that the accuracy of 2D-3D registration is noninferior to that of a 3D-3D registration workflow, with advantages in terms of radiation exposure, intraoperative time demand, and ease of use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31147123
pii: S0741-5214(19)30365-9
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.02.027
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2005-2013Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.