Key result
3D image fusion guidance for in situ fenestration during thoracic endovascular repair reduced fluoroscopy radiation dose-area product and overall operative time compared to conventional guidance.
Why the study?
The feasibility and clinical benefit of utilizing image fusion for thoracic endovascular repair with in situ fenestration had not been evaluated.
Does 3D image fusion guidance reduce operative time, radiation exposure, and contrast medium volume in patients undergoing left subclavian artery in situ fenestration during thoracic endovascular repair?
Cohort (n=34)
No
Does 3D image fusion guidance reduce operative time, radiation exposure, and contrast medium volume in patients undergoing left subclavian artery in situ fenestration during thoracic endovascular repair?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
3D image fusion guidance for ISF-TEVAR significantly reduces procedural time, radiation exposure, and contrast use compared to conventional fluoroscopy.
Objectives To evaluate the feasibility and clinical benefit of utilizing image fusion for thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) with in situ fenestration (ISF-TEVAR). Materials and methods Between January 2020 and December 2020, we prospectively collected 18 consecutive cases with complex thoracic aortic lesions who underwent image fusion guided ISF-TEVAR. As a control group, 18 patients were collected from historical medical records from June 2019 to December 2019. The fusion group involved the use of 3D fusion of CTA and fluoroscopic images for real-time 3D guidance, and the control group involved the use of only regular fluoroscopic images for guidance. The total contrast medium volume, hand-injected contrast medium volume, overall operative time, radiation dose and fluoroscopy time were compared between the two groups. Accuracy was measured based on preoperative CTA and intraoperative digital subtraction angiography. Results 3D fusion imaging guidance was successfully implemented in all patients in the fusion group. Hand-injected contrast medium volume and overall operative time were significantly lower in the fusion group than in the control group (p =.028 and p =.011). Compared with the control group, the fusion group showed a significant reduction in time and radiation dose-area product (DAP) for fluoroscopy (p=.004 and p =.010). No significant differences in total radiation dose (DAP) or total contrast medium volume were observed (p =.079 and p=.443). Full accuracy was achieved in 8 cases (44%), with a mean deviation of 2.61 mm ± 3.1 (range 0.0-8.4 mm). Conclusions 3D image fusion for ISF-TEVAR was associated with a significant reduction in hand-injected contrast medium, time and radiation exposure for fluoroscopy and overall operative time. The image fusion guidance showed potential clinical benefits towards improved treatment safety and accuracy for complex thoracic endovascular interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Complex thoracic aortic lesions (n=34). 3D image fusion guidance vs. Conventional fluoroscopic guidance was evaluated on Radiation dose-area product (DAP) for fluoroscopy (Gy·cm2) (p=0.004). 3D image fusion guidance for in situ fenestration during thoracic endovascular repair reduced fluoroscopy radiation dose-area product and overall operative time compared to conventional guidance.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: