"Virtual stent" - clinical evaluation and user experience of on-the-fly stent simulation in treatment of cerebral aneurysms.
cerebral aneurysm
flat panel ct
stent simulation
virtual stent
Journal
Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences
ISSN: 2385-2011
Titre abrégé: Interv Neuroradiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9602695
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
30
10
2021
medline:
28
9
2022
entrez:
29
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Predicting final stent position can be challenging when treating cerebral aneurysms. Third-Party software proved helpful in selecting proper stents in treatment planning. Recent angiographic systems provide basic stent simulation capabilities integrated in the post-processing software to simulate stent position. Goal of this analysis was to evaluate the simulation process and correlation with definite stent position. Thirty-three datasets with fusiform (n = 10) and saccular (n = 23) aneurysms, treated with stent or flow-diverter, were processed. A "virtual stent" of the same (nominal) size was simulated and its position was compared to the treatment result. Simulated length was rated in five grades (too short, shorter, equal, longer, too long), with regard to side-branches, anchoring zone etc. Simulation quality (centerline recognition/adherence to vessel margins) was rated in three grades (no, minor or major corrections required). Simulation was successful in 32/33 cases (97%), with one abortive attempt (3%). In 27/33 simulations (82%), there was no need for centerline refinement. Minor corrections were necessary in four and major corrections in two cases. Simulated nominal length was rated "equal" in 14/33 (42%) cases and "shorter" or "longer" - but within acceptable range - in each 9/33 (27%) cases. Basic stent simulation tools available with genuine angiographic workplace software can provide good simulation capabilities without need for third-party equipment. They can facilitate treatment planning and help to avoid shortage of devices. Yet, lack of calculation of foreshortening in large vessel diameters leaves the user to rely on their experience to account for device-specific properties.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Predicting final stent position can be challenging when treating cerebral aneurysms. Third-Party software proved helpful in selecting proper stents in treatment planning. Recent angiographic systems provide basic stent simulation capabilities integrated in the post-processing software to simulate stent position. Goal of this analysis was to evaluate the simulation process and correlation with definite stent position.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Thirty-three datasets with fusiform (n = 10) and saccular (n = 23) aneurysms, treated with stent or flow-diverter, were processed. A "virtual stent" of the same (nominal) size was simulated and its position was compared to the treatment result. Simulated length was rated in five grades (too short, shorter, equal, longer, too long), with regard to side-branches, anchoring zone etc. Simulation quality (centerline recognition/adherence to vessel margins) was rated in three grades (no, minor or major corrections required).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Simulation was successful in 32/33 cases (97%), with one abortive attempt (3%). In 27/33 simulations (82%), there was no need for centerline refinement. Minor corrections were necessary in four and major corrections in two cases. Simulated nominal length was rated "equal" in 14/33 (42%) cases and "shorter" or "longer" - but within acceptable range - in each 9/33 (27%) cases.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Basic stent simulation tools available with genuine angiographic workplace software can provide good simulation capabilities without need for third-party equipment. They can facilitate treatment planning and help to avoid shortage of devices. Yet, lack of calculation of foreshortening in large vessel diameters leaves the user to rely on their experience to account for device-specific properties.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34713749
doi: 10.1177/15910199211053131
pmc: PMC9511612
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
581-587Références
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Sep;36(9):1728-34
pubmed: 25999412
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Jun;11(6):591-597
pubmed: 30674632
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013 Oct;34(10):1987-92
pubmed: 23639562
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Apr;33(4):649-54
pubmed: 22194381
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Oct;33(9):1657-62
pubmed: 22538075
J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 Oct;12(10):968-973
pubmed: 32111727
J Neurosurg. 2018 Nov 1;:1-7
pubmed: 30497172
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008 Aug;29(7):1405-8
pubmed: 18436611
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Jun;42(6):E3
pubmed: 28565988
J Neurointerv Surg. 2011 Dec 1;3(4):340-3
pubmed: 21990459
Neurosurgery. 2017 Jan 01;80(1):40-48
pubmed: 28362885
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019 Mar;40(3):524-530
pubmed: 30733254
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005 Oct;26(9):2368-70
pubmed: 16219847
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008 Oct;29(9):1777-81
pubmed: 18719039
Neurointervention. 2017 Mar;12(1):31-39
pubmed: 28316867