Vascular and Interventional Radiology

Prediction of Aortoiliac Stent-Graft Length: Comparison of Measurement Methods

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of helical computed tomography (CT), projectional angiography derived from CT angiography, and intravascular ultrasonographic withdrawal (IUW) length measurements for predicting appropriate aortoiliac stent-graft length.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Helical CT data from 33 patients were analyzed before and after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (Aneuryx graft, n = 31; Excluder graft, n = 2). The aortoiliac length of the median luminal centerline (MLC) and the shortest path (SP) that remained at least one common iliac arterial radius away from the vessel wall were calculated. Conventional angiographic measurements were simulated from CT data as the length of the three-dimensional MLC projected onto four standard viewing planes. These predeployment lengths and IUW length, available in 24 patients, were compared with the aortoiliac arterial length after stent-graft deployment.

RESULTS: The mean error values of SP, MLC, the maximum projected MLC, and IUW were −2.1 mm ± 4.6 (SD) (P = .013), 9.8 mm ± 6.8 (P < .001), −5.2 mm ± 7.8 (P < .001), and −14.1 mm ± 9.3 (P < .001), respectively. The preprocedural prediction of the postprocedural aortoiliac length with the SP was significantly more accurate than that with the MLC (P < .001), maximum projected MLC (P < .001), and IUW (P < .001).

CONCLUSION: The shortest aortoiliac path length maintaining at least one radius distance from the vessel wall most accurately enabled stent-graft length prediction for 31 AneuRx and two Excluder stent-grafts.

References

  • 1 Ernst CB. Abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:1167-1172. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Brown OW, Hollier LH, Pairolero PC, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and coronary artery disease. Arch Surg 1981; 116:1484-1488. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hollier LH, Reigel MM, Kazmier FJ, Pairolero PC, Cherry KJ, Hallett JW. Conventional repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the high-risk patient: a plea for abandonment of nonresective treatment. J Vasc Surg 1986; 3:712-717. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Parodi JC, Criado FJ, Barone HD, Schonholz C, Queral LA. Endoluminal aortic aneurysm repair using a balloon-expandable stent-graft device: a progress report. Ann Vasc Surg 1994; 8:523-529. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Blum U, Langer M, Spillner G, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysms: preliminary technical and clinical results with transfemoral placement of endovascular self-expanding stent-grafts. Radiology 1996; 198:25-31. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dorffner R, Thurnher S, Polterauer P, Kretschmer G, Lammer J. Treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms with transfemoral placement of stent-grafts: complications and secondary radiologic intervention. Radiology 1997; 204:79-86. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Moritz JD, Rotermund S, Keating DP, Oestmann JW. Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms: implications of CT evaluation of size and configuration for placement of endovascular aortic grafts. Radiology 1996; 198:463-466. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Broeders IA, Blankensteijn JD, Olree M, Mali W, Eikelboom BC. Preoperative sizing of grafts for transfemoral endovascular aneurysm management: a prospective comparative study of spiral CT angiography, arteriography, and conventional CT imaging. J Endovasc Surg 1997; 4:252-261. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Beebe HG, Jackson T, Pigott JP. Aortic aneurysm morphology for planning endovascular aortic grafts: limitations of conventional imaging methods. J Endovasc Surg 1995; 2:139-148. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 van Essen JA, Gussenhoven EJ, van der Lugt A, et al. Accurate assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm with intravascular ultrasonography scanning: validation with computed tomographic angiography. J Vasc Surg 1999; 29:631-638. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 White RA, Donayre C, Walot I, et al. Preliminary clinical outcome and imaging criterion for endovascular prosthesis development in high-risk patients who have aortoiliac and traumatic arterial lesions. J Vasc Surg 1996; 24:556-571. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rubin GD, Paik DS, Johnston PC, Napel S. Measurement of the aorta and its branches with helical CT. Radiology 1998; 206:823-829. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rubin GD, Silverman SG. Helical CT of the retroperitoneum. Radiol Clin North Am 1995; 33:903-932. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lorensen WE, Cline HE. Marching cubes: a high-resolution 3D surface construction system. Comput Graph 1987; 21:163-169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Paik DS, Beaulieu CF, Jeffrey RB, Rubin GD, Napel S. Automated flight path planning for virtual endoscopy. Med Phys 1998; 25:629-637. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Balm R, Kaatee R, Blankensteijn JD, Mali WPTM, Eikelboom BC. CT-angiography of abdominal aortic aneurysms after transfemoral endovascular aneurysm management. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 1996; 12:182-188. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gottwik MG, Siebes M, Bahawar H, et al. Quantitative angiographic assessment of coronary stenoses: problems and pitfalls. Z Kardiol 1983; 72(suppl 3):111-115. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Beebe HG. Imaging modalities for aortic endografting. J Endovasc Surg 1997; 4:111-123. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fox AD, Whitely MS, Murphy P, Budd JS, Horrocks M. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging measurements of abdominal aortic aneurysms with measurements obtained by other imaging techniques and intraoperative measurements: possible implications for endovascular grafting. J Vasc Surg 1996; 24:632-638. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fuessi RT, Mintz GS, Pichard AD, et al. In vivo validation of intravascular ultrasonography length measurements using a motorized transducer pullback system. Am J Cardiol 1996; 77:1115-1118. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Aug 2001