Comparison of 1- and 2-Marker Techniques for Calculating System Magnification Factor for Angiographic Measurement of Intracranial Vessels

ABSTRACT Background and Purpose. Accurate estimation of an intracranial vessel size is crucial during a diagnostic or therapeutic angiography procedure. The use of 1 or 2 external markers of known size is previously proposed to manually estimate the magnification factor (MF) of an intracranial vesse...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of neuroimaging 2005-10, Vol.15 (4), p.356-361
Hauptverfasser: Divani, A. A., Tholany, C. R., Siddiqui, A. U., AlKawi, A., Hussain, M. S., Kirmani, J. F., Qureshi, A. I.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 361
container_issue 4
container_start_page 356
container_title Journal of neuroimaging
container_volume 15
creator Divani, A. A.
Tholany, C. R.
Siddiqui, A. U.
AlKawi, A.
Hussain, M. S.
Kirmani, J. F.
Qureshi, A. I.
description ABSTRACT Background and Purpose. Accurate estimation of an intracranial vessel size is crucial during a diagnostic or therapeutic angiography procedure. The use of 1 or 2 external markers of known size is previously proposed to manually estimate the magnification factor (MF) of an intracranial vessel. The authors evaluated the use of different external marker techniques commonly used during angiographic measurements. Methods. Forty‐three intracranial vessels in 17 patients were measured using 1‐and 2‐marker techniques. To obtain the MF, 2 metallic markers were attached to the frontal‐temporal regions. The MFs for the targeted vessels were obtained from the x‐ray films by measuring the image sizes of the markers and their positions with respect to the target vessel. Results. Using a phantom, the errors resulted from (a) linear interpolation of MFs, (b) linear interpolation of inverse MFs, and (c) using the MFs of 1 marker, which were 1.23% to 2.23%, 0.8% to 1.55%, and 3.85% to 14.62%, respectively. A similar trend was observed for the measurement of cerebral arteries. Conclusion. The use of 2 markers can result in a more accurate estimation of the vessel size. The use of only 1 external marker can lead to substantial error based on the location of the target vessel. Optimizing image acquisition is also crucial for accurate determination of vessel size.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1552-6569.2005.tb00336.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68739781</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68739781</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2556-5ae37c029cfd42d154a4ea39b1ffaecea682c7ff3e82e87bd891e28641c0458f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkV1v0zAUhiMEYmPwF5DFBXcJ_oidhAukqWIfqN0kNtildeoedy6J09mJaH8C_xpHrcY1vrFlP-c58nmz7AOjBUvr06ZgUvJcSdUUnFJZDEtKhVDF7kV2-vz0Mp2pZDnndXmSvYlxQylnJRevsxOmuCxLyk6zP7O-20Jwsfekt4TlBPyK8HwB4RcGco_m0bunESOxfSAzaM3YwuD8mtzt44AdWcDaO-tMukyKCzBD4ib23K9dvw6wfXSGLBDiGLBDP0xtrv0QwATwDlryE2PENr7NXlloI7477mfZj4uv97OrfH57eT07n-eGS6lyCSgqQ3lj7KrkKyZLKBFEs2TWAhoEVXNTWSuw5lhXy1XdMOS1KpmhpaytOMs-Hrzb0E8fG3TnosG2BY_9GLWqK9FUNUvg5wNoQh9jQKu3wXUQ9ppRPQWhN3qatp6mracg9DEIvUvF749dxmWHq3-lx8kn4MsB-O1a3P-HWn-7vRFSJUF-ELiUw-5ZkHLTqhKV1A83l3qh5g9KXX3Xd-IvczmqCA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68739781</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of 1- and 2-Marker Techniques for Calculating System Magnification Factor for Angiographic Measurement of Intracranial Vessels</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Divani, A. A. ; Tholany, C. R. ; Siddiqui, A. U. ; AlKawi, A. ; Hussain, M. S. ; Kirmani, J. F. ; Qureshi, A. I.</creator><creatorcontrib>Divani, A. A. ; Tholany, C. R. ; Siddiqui, A. U. ; AlKawi, A. ; Hussain, M. S. ; Kirmani, J. F. ; Qureshi, A. I.</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT Background and Purpose. Accurate estimation of an intracranial vessel size is crucial during a diagnostic or therapeutic angiography procedure. The use of 1 or 2 external markers of known size is previously proposed to manually estimate the magnification factor (MF) of an intracranial vessel. The authors evaluated the use of different external marker techniques commonly used during angiographic measurements. Methods. Forty‐three intracranial vessels in 17 patients were measured using 1‐and 2‐marker techniques. To obtain the MF, 2 metallic markers were attached to the frontal‐temporal regions. The MFs for the targeted vessels were obtained from the x‐ray films by measuring the image sizes of the markers and their positions with respect to the target vessel. Results. Using a phantom, the errors resulted from (a) linear interpolation of MFs, (b) linear interpolation of inverse MFs, and (c) using the MFs of 1 marker, which were 1.23% to 2.23%, 0.8% to 1.55%, and 3.85% to 14.62%, respectively. A similar trend was observed for the measurement of cerebral arteries. Conclusion. The use of 2 markers can result in a more accurate estimation of the vessel size. The use of only 1 external marker can lead to substantial error based on the location of the target vessel. Optimizing image acquisition is also crucial for accurate determination of vessel size.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1051-2284</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-6569</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1552-6569.2005.tb00336.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16254401</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; angiography ; calibration ; Cerebral Angiography - methods ; Cerebral Arteries - anatomy &amp; histology ; Female ; Humans ; magnification factor ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Phantoms, Imaging ; stenosis ; Vessel size measurement</subject><ispartof>Journal of neuroimaging, 2005-10, Vol.15 (4), p.356-361</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2556-5ae37c029cfd42d154a4ea39b1ffaecea682c7ff3e82e87bd891e28641c0458f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2556-5ae37c029cfd42d154a4ea39b1ffaecea682c7ff3e82e87bd891e28641c0458f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1552-6569.2005.tb00336.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1552-6569.2005.tb00336.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16254401$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Divani, A. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tholany, C. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siddiqui, A. U.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AlKawi, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hussain, M. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirmani, J. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qureshi, A. I.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of 1- and 2-Marker Techniques for Calculating System Magnification Factor for Angiographic Measurement of Intracranial Vessels</title><title>Journal of neuroimaging</title><addtitle>J Neuroimaging</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT Background and Purpose. Accurate estimation of an intracranial vessel size is crucial during a diagnostic or therapeutic angiography procedure. The use of 1 or 2 external markers of known size is previously proposed to manually estimate the magnification factor (MF) of an intracranial vessel. The authors evaluated the use of different external marker techniques commonly used during angiographic measurements. Methods. Forty‐three intracranial vessels in 17 patients were measured using 1‐and 2‐marker techniques. To obtain the MF, 2 metallic markers were attached to the frontal‐temporal regions. The MFs for the targeted vessels were obtained from the x‐ray films by measuring the image sizes of the markers and their positions with respect to the target vessel. Results. Using a phantom, the errors resulted from (a) linear interpolation of MFs, (b) linear interpolation of inverse MFs, and (c) using the MFs of 1 marker, which were 1.23% to 2.23%, 0.8% to 1.55%, and 3.85% to 14.62%, respectively. A similar trend was observed for the measurement of cerebral arteries. Conclusion. The use of 2 markers can result in a more accurate estimation of the vessel size. The use of only 1 external marker can lead to substantial error based on the location of the target vessel. Optimizing image acquisition is also crucial for accurate determination of vessel size.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>angiography</subject><subject>calibration</subject><subject>Cerebral Angiography - methods</subject><subject>Cerebral Arteries - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>magnification factor</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>stenosis</subject><subject>Vessel size measurement</subject><issn>1051-2284</issn><issn>1552-6569</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkV1v0zAUhiMEYmPwF5DFBXcJ_oidhAukqWIfqN0kNtildeoedy6J09mJaH8C_xpHrcY1vrFlP-c58nmz7AOjBUvr06ZgUvJcSdUUnFJZDEtKhVDF7kV2-vz0Mp2pZDnndXmSvYlxQylnJRevsxOmuCxLyk6zP7O-20Jwsfekt4TlBPyK8HwB4RcGco_m0bunESOxfSAzaM3YwuD8mtzt44AdWcDaO-tMukyKCzBD4ib23K9dvw6wfXSGLBDiGLBDP0xtrv0QwATwDlryE2PENr7NXlloI7477mfZj4uv97OrfH57eT07n-eGS6lyCSgqQ3lj7KrkKyZLKBFEs2TWAhoEVXNTWSuw5lhXy1XdMOS1KpmhpaytOMs-Hrzb0E8fG3TnosG2BY_9GLWqK9FUNUvg5wNoQh9jQKu3wXUQ9ppRPQWhN3qatp6mracg9DEIvUvF749dxmWHq3-lx8kn4MsB-O1a3P-HWn-7vRFSJUF-ELiUw-5ZkHLTqhKV1A83l3qh5g9KXX3Xd-IvczmqCA</recordid><startdate>200510</startdate><enddate>200510</enddate><creator>Divani, A. A.</creator><creator>Tholany, C. R.</creator><creator>Siddiqui, A. U.</creator><creator>AlKawi, A.</creator><creator>Hussain, M. S.</creator><creator>Kirmani, J. F.</creator><creator>Qureshi, A. I.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200510</creationdate><title>Comparison of 1- and 2-Marker Techniques for Calculating System Magnification Factor for Angiographic Measurement of Intracranial Vessels</title><author>Divani, A. A. ; Tholany, C. R. ; Siddiqui, A. U. ; AlKawi, A. ; Hussain, M. S. ; Kirmani, J. F. ; Qureshi, A. I.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2556-5ae37c029cfd42d154a4ea39b1ffaecea682c7ff3e82e87bd891e28641c0458f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>angiography</topic><topic>calibration</topic><topic>Cerebral Angiography - methods</topic><topic>Cerebral Arteries - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>magnification factor</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>stenosis</topic><topic>Vessel size measurement</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Divani, A. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tholany, C. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siddiqui, A. U.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AlKawi, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hussain, M. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirmani, J. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qureshi, A. I.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of neuroimaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Divani, A. A.</au><au>Tholany, C. R.</au><au>Siddiqui, A. U.</au><au>AlKawi, A.</au><au>Hussain, M. S.</au><au>Kirmani, J. F.</au><au>Qureshi, A. I.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of 1- and 2-Marker Techniques for Calculating System Magnification Factor for Angiographic Measurement of Intracranial Vessels</atitle><jtitle>Journal of neuroimaging</jtitle><addtitle>J Neuroimaging</addtitle><date>2005-10</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>356</spage><epage>361</epage><pages>356-361</pages><issn>1051-2284</issn><eissn>1552-6569</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT Background and Purpose. Accurate estimation of an intracranial vessel size is crucial during a diagnostic or therapeutic angiography procedure. The use of 1 or 2 external markers of known size is previously proposed to manually estimate the magnification factor (MF) of an intracranial vessel. The authors evaluated the use of different external marker techniques commonly used during angiographic measurements. Methods. Forty‐three intracranial vessels in 17 patients were measured using 1‐and 2‐marker techniques. To obtain the MF, 2 metallic markers were attached to the frontal‐temporal regions. The MFs for the targeted vessels were obtained from the x‐ray films by measuring the image sizes of the markers and their positions with respect to the target vessel. Results. Using a phantom, the errors resulted from (a) linear interpolation of MFs, (b) linear interpolation of inverse MFs, and (c) using the MFs of 1 marker, which were 1.23% to 2.23%, 0.8% to 1.55%, and 3.85% to 14.62%, respectively. A similar trend was observed for the measurement of cerebral arteries. Conclusion. The use of 2 markers can result in a more accurate estimation of the vessel size. The use of only 1 external marker can lead to substantial error based on the location of the target vessel. Optimizing image acquisition is also crucial for accurate determination of vessel size.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>16254401</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1552-6569.2005.tb00336.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1051-2284
ispartof Journal of neuroimaging, 2005-10, Vol.15 (4), p.356-361
issn 1051-2284
1552-6569
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68739781
source Wiley-Blackwell Journals; MEDLINE
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
angiography
calibration
Cerebral Angiography - methods
Cerebral Arteries - anatomy & histology
Female
Humans
magnification factor
Male
Middle Aged
Phantoms, Imaging
stenosis
Vessel size measurement
title Comparison of 1- and 2-Marker Techniques for Calculating System Magnification Factor for Angiographic Measurement of Intracranial Vessels
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T15%3A34%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%201-%20and%202-Marker%20Techniques%20for%20Calculating%20System%20Magnification%20Factor%20for%20Angiographic%20Measurement%20of%20Intracranial%20Vessels&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20neuroimaging&rft.au=Divani,%20A.%20A.&rft.date=2005-10&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=356&rft.epage=361&rft.pages=356-361&rft.issn=1051-2284&rft.eissn=1552-6569&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1552-6569.2005.tb00336.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68739781%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68739781&rft_id=info:pmid/16254401&rfr_iscdi=true