Three-dimensional ultrasonography measurements after endovascular aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND Ultrasonographic (US) assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms is typically performed by measuring maximal aneurysm diameter from two-dimensional images. These measurements are prone to inaccuracies owing to image planes and interobserver variability. The purpose of this study was to compare the variability in diameter, cross-sectional area (CSA), and volume measurements of abdominal aortic aneurysms obtained using a three-dimensional (3D) US imaging system with those obtained using computed tomographic (CT) angiography, and to determine the reliability of these measures. METHODS Seven patients in whom endovascular aneurysm repairs were performed underwent CT angiography in addition to a 3D US scan. Measurements computed using 3D surface reconstructions of CT and 3D US scans included maximum diameter, CSA, and aneurysm volume. The seven matched CT and 3D US scans were compared at baseline and 6 to 8 weeks later. RESULTS The average aneurysm measured 57.2 mm on CT and 56.2 mm on US (P = 0.14). Correlation coefficients for diameter, CSA, and volume were 0.88, 0.90, and 0.93, respectively (all P values < 0.001). A Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a strong agreement between 92% of the diameter, 96.4% of the CSA, and 100% of the volume measurements. The interrater reliability was remarkably high comparing the modalities (CT vs. US), and ranged from 0.934 to 0.997 for single measurements and 0.965 to 0.998 for all measurements together; moreover, there was a strong reliability when the tests were reviewed 6 to 8 weeks later, with a reliability of 0.962 to 0.998 for single measurements and 0.992 to 0.999 for all tests (all P values < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The 3D US is an accurate and noninvasive method of determining aneurysm size and geometry that is reproducible. Volumetric measurements may represent a significant advancement in long-term follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair.

[1]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[2]  Imaging Modalities for Aortic Endografting , 1997, Journal of endovascular surgery : the official journal of the International Society for Endovascular Surgery.

[3]  G. Rubin,et al.  Duplex ultrasound scanning versus computed tomographic angiography for postoperative evaluation of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. , 2000, Journal of vascular surgery.

[4]  C. Boissier,et al.  Comparison of Color Duplex Ultrasound and Computed Tomography Scan for Surveillance after Aortic Endografting , 2001, Annals of vascular surgery.

[5]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[6]  W. Mali,et al.  Inter- and intraobserver variability of CT measurements obtained after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  L J Schultze Kool,et al.  Abdominal aortic aneurysm measurements for endovascular repair: intra- and interobserver variability of CT measurements. , 1999, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[8]  M.E. Legget,et al.  System for quantitative three-dimensional echocardiography of the left ventricle based on a magnetic-field position and orientation sensing system , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  K W Beach,et al.  Measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms with three-dimensional ultrasound imaging: preliminary report. , 2001, Journal of vascular surgery.

[10]  J. Blankensteijn,et al.  Maximal aneurysm diameter follow-up is inadequate after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. , 2000, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[11]  M. Makaroun,et al.  Duplex ultrasound as the sole long-term surveillance method post-endovascular aneurysm repair: a safe alternative for stable aneurysms. , 2009, Journal of vascular surgery.

[12]  M. Prins,et al.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus computed tomographic angiography for surveillance of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. , 2010, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[13]  K W Beach,et al.  Serial measurement of cross-sectional area in peripheral vein grafts using three-dimensional ultrasound. , 2001, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[14]  E. Verhoeven,et al.  Is it time to eliminate CT after EVAR as routine follow-up? , 2011, The Journal of cardiovascular surgery.

[15]  D. Gould,et al.  Freedom from endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair does not equal treatment success. , 2000, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[16]  G. Kopchok,et al.  Computed tomography assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm morphology after endograft exclusion. , 2001, Journal of vascular surgery.

[17]  A. Karthikesalingam,et al.  Duplex ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus computed tomography for the detection of endoleak after EVAR: systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. , 2010, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[18]  K. Partanen,et al.  Interobserver variability in measuring the dimensions of the abdominal aorta: comparison of ultrasound and computed tomography. , 1996, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[19]  M. Fillinger,et al.  Three-dimensional analysis of enlarging aneurysms after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the Gore Excluder Pivotal clinical trial. , 2006, Journal of vascular surgery.