The correlation between different ultrasound planes and computed tomography measures of abdominal aortic aneurysms.
abdominal aortic aneurysm
coronal plane
decubitus
measurements
ultrasound window
Journal
Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine
ISSN: 2205-0140
Titre abrégé: Australas J Ultrasound Med
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101583539
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Feb 2023
Historique:
entrez:
24
3
2023
pubmed:
25
3
2023
medline:
25
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ultrasound measurements of the aorta are typically taken in the axial plane, with the transducer perpendicular to the aorta, and diameter measurements are obtained by placing the callipers from the anterior to the posterior wall and the transverse right to the left side of the aorta. While the 'conventional' anteroposterior walls in both sagittal and transverse plains may be suitable for aneurysms with less complicated geometry, there is controversy regarding the suitability of this approach for complicated, particularly tortuous aneurysms, as they may offer a more challenging situation. Previous work undertaken within our research group found that when training inexperienced users of ultrasound, they demonstrated more optimal calliper placement to the abdominal aorta when approached from a decubitus window to obtain a coronal image compared to the traditional ultrasound approach. To observe the level of agreement in real-world reporting between computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound measurements in three standard planes; transverse AP, sagittal AP and coronal (left to right) infra-renal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter. This is a retrospective review of the Otago Vascular Diagnostics database for AAA, where ultrasound and CT diameter data, available within 90 days of each other, were compared. In addition to patient demographics, the infrarenal aorta ultrasound diameter measurements in transverse AP and sagittal AP, along with a coronal decubitus image of the aorta was collected. No transverse measurement was performed from the left to the right of the aorta. Three hundred twenty-five participants (238 males, mean age 76.4 ± 7.5) were included. Mean ultrasound outer to the outer wall, transverse AP and sagittal AP diameters were 48.7 ± 10.5 mm and 48.9 ± 9.9 mm, respectively. The coronal diameter measurement of the aorta from left to right was 53.9 ± 12.8 mm in the left decubitus window. The mean ultrasound max was 54.3 ± 12.6 mm. The mean CT diameter measurement was 55.6 ± 12.7 mm. Correlation between the CT max and ultrasound max was The decubitus ultrasound window of the abdominal aorta, with measurement of the coronal plane, is highly correlated and in agreement with CT scanning. This window may offer an alternative approach to measuring the infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm and should be considered when performing surveillance of all infra-renal AAA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36960142
doi: 10.1002/ajum.12319
pii: AJUM12319
pmc: PMC10030093
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
5-12Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no disclosures to declare or conflicts of interest.
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2013 Nov 22;11:42
pubmed: 24261878
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014 Apr;47(4):367-73
pubmed: 24491283
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018 Feb;55(2):206-213
pubmed: 29277483
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012 May;43(5):515-24
pubmed: 22336051
JAMA. 1999 Jan 6;281(1):77-82
pubmed: 9892455
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012 Jan;43(1):30-3
pubmed: 22018525
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011 Nov;42(5):608-14
pubmed: 21852165
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Apr;71(4):1215-1221
pubmed: 31492616
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1996 Jan;11(1):70-3
pubmed: 8564490
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013 Mar;45(3):235-40
pubmed: 23332308
Lancet. 1988 Sep 10;2(8611):613-5
pubmed: 2900988
Radiographics. 2015 Jan-Feb;35(1):254-68
pubmed: 25590402
Br J Surg. 2011 Nov;98(11):1517-25
pubmed: 21861264
Br J Surg. 2014 May;101(6):633-6
pubmed: 24723017
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1996 Aug;12(2):230-7
pubmed: 8760988
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2002 Nov;24(5):428-34
pubmed: 12435343
J Clin Ultrasound. 2021 May;49(4):328-333
pubmed: 32984964
Int J Vasc Med. 2014;2014:574762
pubmed: 25506431
Ultrasound J. 2021 Feb 26;13(1):13
pubmed: 33646456
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006 Mar;31(3):231-6
pubmed: 16293428
JAMA. 2002 Jun 12;287(22):2968-72
pubmed: 12052126
Ann Vasc Surg. 2013 Feb;27(2):154-61
pubmed: 22951061
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004 Jul;28(1):28-35
pubmed: 15177228
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014 Feb;47(2):139-50
pubmed: 24268793