Reliability of Semiautomatic Centerline Analysis versus Manual Aortic Measurement Techniques for TEVAR among Non-experts
Abstract Objectives The study aimed to test whether reliability and inter-observer variability of preoperative measurements for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) among non-experts are improved by semiautomatic centerline analysis compared with manual assessment. Methods Preoperative comput...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery 2011-09, Vol.42 (3), p.324-331 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 331 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 324 |
| container_title | European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery |
| container_volume | 42 |
| creator | Rengier, F Weber, T.F Partovi, S Müller-Eschner, M Böckler, D Kauczor, H.-U von Tengg-Kobligk, H |
| description | Abstract Objectives The study aimed to test whether reliability and inter-observer variability of preoperative measurements for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) among non-experts are improved by semiautomatic centerline analysis compared with manual assessment. Methods Preoperative computed tomography (CT) angiographies of 30 patients with thoracic aortic disease (mean age 66.8 ± 11.6 years, 23 men) were retrospectively analysed in randomised order by one blinded vascular expert (reference standard) and three blinded non-expert readers. Aortic diameters were measured at four positions relevant to TEVAR using three measurement techniques (manual axial slices, manual multiplanar reformations (MPRs) and semiautomatic centerline analysis). Length measurements were performed using centerline analysis. Reliability was calculated as absolute measurement deviation (AMD) from reference standard and inter-observer variability as coefficient of variance (CV) among non-expert readers. Results For axial, MPR and centerline techniques, mean AMD was 7.3 ± 7.7%, 6.7 ± 4.5% and 4.7 ± 4.8% and mean CV was 5.2 ± 4.2%, 5.8 ± 4.8% and 3.9 ± 5.4%. Both AMD and CV were significantly lower for centerline analysis compared with axial technique ( p = 0.001/0.042) and MPR ( p = 0.009/0.003). AMD and CV for length measurements by centerline analysis were 3.2 ± 2.8% and 2.6 ± 2.4%, respectively. Centerline analysis was significantly faster than MPR ( p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.04.019 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_884272842</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1078588411002279</els_id><sourcerecordid>884272842</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-e6b04cffab6add5d999f391261081e82eb971dcc69123ddff431c11439f54dab3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1DAUhSMEoqXwAiyQd6wSfJ1_CSGNRoVWakFqB7aWY1-DQxIPvsmo8_Y4msKCBRvbsr5zrn1OkrwGngGH6l2fYX-gTHCAjBcZh_ZJcg5lLlIBVfk0nnndpGXTFGfJC6Kec15CXj5PzgSUNW_q9jx5uMPBqc4Nbj4yb9k9jk4tsx_V7DTb4jRjGNyEbDOp4UiO2AEDLcRu1bSogW18WMFbVLQEHCPPdqh_TO7XgsSsD2x3-W1zx9Top-_ss59SfNhjmOll8syqgfDV436RfP14udtepTdfPl1vNzepLspiTrHqeKGtVV2ljClN27Y2b0FUwBvARmDX1mC0ruJdboy1RQ4aoMhbWxZGdflF8vbkuw9-fdMsR0cah0FN6BeSMR1Ri7hEUpxIHTxRQCv3wY0qHCVwuQYue7kGLtfAJS9kDDyK3jzaL92I5q_kT8IReH8CMH7y4DBI0g4njcYF1LM03v3f_8M_ch3rcFoNP_GI1PslxGJIgiQhubxfK18bB-BciDj_N-evqPg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>884272842</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reliability of Semiautomatic Centerline Analysis versus Manual Aortic Measurement Techniques for TEVAR among Non-experts</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Rengier, F ; Weber, T.F ; Partovi, S ; Müller-Eschner, M ; Böckler, D ; Kauczor, H.-U ; von Tengg-Kobligk, H</creator><creatorcontrib>Rengier, F ; Weber, T.F ; Partovi, S ; Müller-Eschner, M ; Böckler, D ; Kauczor, H.-U ; von Tengg-Kobligk, H</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objectives The study aimed to test whether reliability and inter-observer variability of preoperative measurements for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) among non-experts are improved by semiautomatic centerline analysis compared with manual assessment. Methods Preoperative computed tomography (CT) angiographies of 30 patients with thoracic aortic disease (mean age 66.8 ± 11.6 years, 23 men) were retrospectively analysed in randomised order by one blinded vascular expert (reference standard) and three blinded non-expert readers. Aortic diameters were measured at four positions relevant to TEVAR using three measurement techniques (manual axial slices, manual multiplanar reformations (MPRs) and semiautomatic centerline analysis). Length measurements were performed using centerline analysis. Reliability was calculated as absolute measurement deviation (AMD) from reference standard and inter-observer variability as coefficient of variance (CV) among non-expert readers. Results For axial, MPR and centerline techniques, mean AMD was 7.3 ± 7.7%, 6.7 ± 4.5% and 4.7 ± 4.8% and mean CV was 5.2 ± 4.2%, 5.8 ± 4.8% and 3.9 ± 5.4%. Both AMD and CV were significantly lower for centerline analysis compared with axial technique ( p = 0.001/0.042) and MPR ( p = 0.009/0.003). AMD and CV for length measurements by centerline analysis were 3.2 ± 2.8% and 2.6 ± 2.4%, respectively. Centerline analysis was significantly faster than MPR ( p < 0.001). Conclusions Semiautomatic centerline analysis provides the most reliable and least variable diameter and length measurements among non-experts in candidates for TEVAR.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1078-5884</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-2165</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.04.019</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21570879</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Angiography ; Aorta ; Aorta, Thoracic - diagnostic imaging ; Aorta, Thoracic - pathology ; Aorta, Thoracic - surgery ; Aortic Diseases - diagnostic imaging ; Aortic Diseases - surgery ; Body Weights and Measures ; Computed tomography ; Computer-assisted image analysis ; Endovascular ; Endovascular Procedures - methods ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Observer Variation ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgery ; Thoracic aorta ; Three-dimensional imaging ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><ispartof>European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery, 2011-09, Vol.42 (3), p.324-331</ispartof><rights>European Society for Vascular Surgery</rights><rights>2011 European Society for Vascular Surgery</rights><rights>Copyright © 2011 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-e6b04cffab6add5d999f391261081e82eb971dcc69123ddff431c11439f54dab3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-e6b04cffab6add5d999f391261081e82eb971dcc69123ddff431c11439f54dab3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.04.019$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21570879$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rengier, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weber, T.F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Partovi, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Müller-Eschner, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Böckler, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kauczor, H.-U</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>von Tengg-Kobligk, H</creatorcontrib><title>Reliability of Semiautomatic Centerline Analysis versus Manual Aortic Measurement Techniques for TEVAR among Non-experts</title><title>European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery</title><addtitle>Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg</addtitle><description>Abstract Objectives The study aimed to test whether reliability and inter-observer variability of preoperative measurements for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) among non-experts are improved by semiautomatic centerline analysis compared with manual assessment. Methods Preoperative computed tomography (CT) angiographies of 30 patients with thoracic aortic disease (mean age 66.8 ± 11.6 years, 23 men) were retrospectively analysed in randomised order by one blinded vascular expert (reference standard) and three blinded non-expert readers. Aortic diameters were measured at four positions relevant to TEVAR using three measurement techniques (manual axial slices, manual multiplanar reformations (MPRs) and semiautomatic centerline analysis). Length measurements were performed using centerline analysis. Reliability was calculated as absolute measurement deviation (AMD) from reference standard and inter-observer variability as coefficient of variance (CV) among non-expert readers. Results For axial, MPR and centerline techniques, mean AMD was 7.3 ± 7.7%, 6.7 ± 4.5% and 4.7 ± 4.8% and mean CV was 5.2 ± 4.2%, 5.8 ± 4.8% and 3.9 ± 5.4%. Both AMD and CV were significantly lower for centerline analysis compared with axial technique ( p = 0.001/0.042) and MPR ( p = 0.009/0.003). AMD and CV for length measurements by centerline analysis were 3.2 ± 2.8% and 2.6 ± 2.4%, respectively. Centerline analysis was significantly faster than MPR ( p < 0.001). Conclusions Semiautomatic centerline analysis provides the most reliable and least variable diameter and length measurements among non-experts in candidates for TEVAR.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Angiography</subject><subject>Aorta</subject><subject>Aorta, Thoracic - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Aorta, Thoracic - pathology</subject><subject>Aorta, Thoracic - surgery</subject><subject>Aortic Diseases - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Aortic Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Body Weights and Measures</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Computer-assisted image analysis</subject><subject>Endovascular</subject><subject>Endovascular Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Thoracic aorta</subject><subject>Three-dimensional imaging</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><issn>1078-5884</issn><issn>1532-2165</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1u1DAUhSMEoqXwAiyQd6wSfJ1_CSGNRoVWakFqB7aWY1-DQxIPvsmo8_Y4msKCBRvbsr5zrn1OkrwGngGH6l2fYX-gTHCAjBcZh_ZJcg5lLlIBVfk0nnndpGXTFGfJC6Kec15CXj5PzgSUNW_q9jx5uMPBqc4Nbj4yb9k9jk4tsx_V7DTb4jRjGNyEbDOp4UiO2AEDLcRu1bSogW18WMFbVLQEHCPPdqh_TO7XgsSsD2x3-W1zx9Top-_ss59SfNhjmOll8syqgfDV436RfP14udtepTdfPl1vNzepLspiTrHqeKGtVV2ljClN27Y2b0FUwBvARmDX1mC0ruJdboy1RQ4aoMhbWxZGdflF8vbkuw9-fdMsR0cah0FN6BeSMR1Ri7hEUpxIHTxRQCv3wY0qHCVwuQYue7kGLtfAJS9kDDyK3jzaL92I5q_kT8IReH8CMH7y4DBI0g4njcYF1LM03v3f_8M_ch3rcFoNP_GI1PslxGJIgiQhubxfK18bB-BciDj_N-evqPg</recordid><startdate>20110901</startdate><enddate>20110901</enddate><creator>Rengier, F</creator><creator>Weber, T.F</creator><creator>Partovi, S</creator><creator>Müller-Eschner, M</creator><creator>Böckler, D</creator><creator>Kauczor, H.-U</creator><creator>von Tengg-Kobligk, H</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</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>20110901</creationdate><title>Reliability of Semiautomatic Centerline Analysis versus Manual Aortic Measurement Techniques for TEVAR among Non-experts</title><author>Rengier, F ; Weber, T.F ; Partovi, S ; Müller-Eschner, M ; Böckler, D ; Kauczor, H.-U ; von Tengg-Kobligk, H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-e6b04cffab6add5d999f391261081e82eb971dcc69123ddff431c11439f54dab3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Angiography</topic><topic>Aorta</topic><topic>Aorta, Thoracic - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Aorta, Thoracic - pathology</topic><topic>Aorta, Thoracic - surgery</topic><topic>Aortic Diseases - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Aortic Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Body Weights and Measures</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Computer-assisted image analysis</topic><topic>Endovascular</topic><topic>Endovascular Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Thoracic aorta</topic><topic>Three-dimensional imaging</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rengier, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weber, T.F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Partovi, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Müller-Eschner, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Böckler, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kauczor, H.-U</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>von Tengg-Kobligk, H</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</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>European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rengier, F</au><au>Weber, T.F</au><au>Partovi, S</au><au>Müller-Eschner, M</au><au>Böckler, D</au><au>Kauczor, H.-U</au><au>von Tengg-Kobligk, H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reliability of Semiautomatic Centerline Analysis versus Manual Aortic Measurement Techniques for TEVAR among Non-experts</atitle><jtitle>European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg</addtitle><date>2011-09-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>324</spage><epage>331</epage><pages>324-331</pages><issn>1078-5884</issn><eissn>1532-2165</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objectives The study aimed to test whether reliability and inter-observer variability of preoperative measurements for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) among non-experts are improved by semiautomatic centerline analysis compared with manual assessment. Methods Preoperative computed tomography (CT) angiographies of 30 patients with thoracic aortic disease (mean age 66.8 ± 11.6 years, 23 men) were retrospectively analysed in randomised order by one blinded vascular expert (reference standard) and three blinded non-expert readers. Aortic diameters were measured at four positions relevant to TEVAR using three measurement techniques (manual axial slices, manual multiplanar reformations (MPRs) and semiautomatic centerline analysis). Length measurements were performed using centerline analysis. Reliability was calculated as absolute measurement deviation (AMD) from reference standard and inter-observer variability as coefficient of variance (CV) among non-expert readers. Results For axial, MPR and centerline techniques, mean AMD was 7.3 ± 7.7%, 6.7 ± 4.5% and 4.7 ± 4.8% and mean CV was 5.2 ± 4.2%, 5.8 ± 4.8% and 3.9 ± 5.4%. Both AMD and CV were significantly lower for centerline analysis compared with axial technique ( p = 0.001/0.042) and MPR ( p = 0.009/0.003). AMD and CV for length measurements by centerline analysis were 3.2 ± 2.8% and 2.6 ± 2.4%, respectively. Centerline analysis was significantly faster than MPR ( p < 0.001). Conclusions Semiautomatic centerline analysis provides the most reliable and least variable diameter and length measurements among non-experts in candidates for TEVAR.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>21570879</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.04.019</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1078-5884 |
| ispartof | European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery, 2011-09, Vol.42 (3), p.324-331 |
| issn | 1078-5884 1532-2165 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_884272842 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Angiography Aorta Aorta, Thoracic - diagnostic imaging Aorta, Thoracic - pathology Aorta, Thoracic - surgery Aortic Diseases - diagnostic imaging Aortic Diseases - surgery Body Weights and Measures Computed tomography Computer-assisted image analysis Endovascular Endovascular Procedures - methods Female Humans Male Middle Aged Observer Variation Reproducibility of Results Retrospective Studies Surgery Thoracic aorta Three-dimensional imaging Tomography, X-Ray Computed |
| title | Reliability of Semiautomatic Centerline Analysis versus Manual Aortic Measurement Techniques for TEVAR among Non-experts |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T03%3A35%3A31IST&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=Reliability%20of%20Semiautomatic%20Centerline%20Analysis%20versus%20Manual%20Aortic%20Measurement%20Techniques%20for%20TEVAR%20among%20Non-experts&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20vascular%20and%20endovascular%20surgery&rft.au=Rengier,%20F&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=324&rft.epage=331&rft.pages=324-331&rft.issn=1078-5884&rft.eissn=1532-2165&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.04.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E884272842%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=884272842&rft_id=info:pmid/21570879&rft_els_id=S1078588411002279&rfr_iscdi=true |