Why the study?
Does spiral computed tomography differ from angiography with a calibrated catheter in measuring aorto-iliac dimensions for abdominal aortic aneurysm endograft planning?
Does spiral computed tomography differ from angiography with a calibrated catheter in measuring aorto-iliac dimensions for abdominal aortic aneurysm endograft planning?
CT and angiography provide significantly different measurements for AAA endograft planning, suggesting both methods are complementary (CT for diameters, angiography for lengths).
Discrepancies advise caution against interchangeable use for AAA endograft planning; supports complementary roles but leaves open prospective validation.
PURPOSE: To compare the computed tomography and angiography study of abdominal aortic aneurysms for posterior endograft implant. METHOD: From June 1997 to March 2001, 113 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm were submitted to study of the aorto-iliac axis with abdominal spiral computed tomography and angiography with calibrated catheter. The patient's ages ranged from 51 and 88 years (mean: 69). There were 104 males and nine females. RESULTS: When comparing the mean computed tomography and angiography diameters, we observed that there was a statistical difference for the infra-renal neck (p<0.05) and for the aortic aneurysm diameters (p<0.001). There was no statistical difference for the iliac artery diameters (p>0.05). When comparing the mean lengths, we observed that there was a statistical difference for the aortic infra-renal neck (p<0.05), for the distance between the renal artery and the aortic bifurcation (p<0.05) and for the common iliac artery lengths (p<0.05). There was also a statistical difference for the length between the renal artery and the internal iliac artery (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the AAA pre-procedure imaging study there were statistical differences between the computed tomography and angiographic measurement studies. We believe that computed tomography is a superior method for the evaluation of diameters and the angiography with a calibrated catheter for the length evaluation. We conclude, that both methods are complementary and must be undertaken for accurate evaluation of all candidates for aortic endograft implant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Espinosa et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: