Navigation überspringen
Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg
Status: Bibliographieeintrag

Verfügbarkeit
Standort: ---
Exemplare: ---
heiBIB
 Online-Ressource
Verfasst von:Rengier, Fabian [VerfasserIn]   i
 Weber, Tim [VerfasserIn]   i
 Partovi, S. [VerfasserIn]   i
 Müller-Eschner, M. [VerfasserIn]   i
 Böckler, Dittmar [VerfasserIn]   i
 Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich [VerfasserIn]   i
 Tengg-Kobligk, Hendrik von [VerfasserIn]   i
Titel:Reliability of semiautomatic centerline analysis versus manual aortic measurement techniques for TEVAR among non-experts
Verf.angabe:F. Rengier, T.F. Weber, S. Partovi, M. Müller-Eschner, D. Böckler, H.-U. Kauczor, H. von Tengg-Kobligk
E-Jahr:2011
Jahr:13 May 2011
Umfang:8 S.
Fussnoten:Gesehen am 15.09.2022
Titel Quelle:Enthalten in: European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery
Ort Quelle:New York, NY : Elsevier, 1995
Jahr Quelle:2011
Band/Heft Quelle:42(2011), 3, Seite 324-331
ISSN Quelle:1532-2165
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.
DOI:doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.04.019
URL:Bitte beachten Sie: Dies ist ein Bibliographieeintrag. Ein Volltextzugriff für Mitglieder der Universität besteht hier nur, falls für die entsprechende Zeitschrift/den entsprechenden Sammelband ein Abonnement besteht oder es sich um einen OpenAccess-Titel handelt.

Volltext: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.04.019
 Volltext: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078588411002279
 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.04.019
Datenträger:Online-Ressource
Sprache:eng
Sach-SW:Computed tomography
 Computer-assisted image analysis
 Endovascular
 Thoracic aorta
 Three-dimensional imaging
K10plus-PPN:1816707279
Verknüpfungen:→ Zeitschrift

Permanenter Link auf diesen Titel (bookmarkfähig):  https://katalog.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/titel/68964529   QR-Code
zum Seitenanfang