Two-dimensional-three-dimensional registration for fusion imaging is noninferior to three-dimensional- three-dimensional registration in infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Fusion imaging is a tool for intraoperative three-dimensional (3D) guidance in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In many aortic centers, the registration for location is based on an intraoperative 3D dataset acquired by means of cone-beam computed tomography (3D-3D registration). Another registration method is based on two two-dimensional (2D) images (lateral and posteroanterior) acquired with the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy for registration with a computed tomographic angiogram (2D-3D registration). The aim of the present study was to compare 2D-3D registration with 3D-3D registration regarding noninferiority in accuracy and to describe radiation exposure and ease of use of both modalities. METHODS: From December 2014 to September 2015, 50 sequentially enrolled patients received EVAR with the use of fusion imaging using 2D-3D registration. No adjustments were made until the first angiography with inserted stent graft. The deviation of fusion imaging to the actual position of the lower renal artery compared with digital subtraction angiography was measured. A historic cohort of 101 patients treated with EVAR and fusion imaging with 3D-3D registration (3D-3D cohort) served as the control group for this study. RESULTS: Craniocaudal deviation did not differ significantly (4.6 ± 4.4 mm in the 2D-3D cohort vs 3.6 ± 3.9 mm in the 3D-3D cohort; P = .17). The difference of the means was 1.05 mm with a 95% confidence interval of -2.45 to 0.34 and a P value for the noninferiority test of .0249, indicating that 2D-3D registration was noninferior in terms of a margin of δ = 2.5 mm. 2D-3D registration was significantly faster with significantly less additional radiation necessary: 0.45 ± 0.28 vs 45.7 ± 9.1 Gy·cm2 in the 3D-3D cohort (P < .001); 2.3 ± 1.3 vs 5.3 ± 4.3 minutes in the 3D-3D cohort (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Fusion imaging during EVAR with the use of 2D-3D registration is feasible in routine EVAR. Our findings of two consecutive cohorts with the same clinical, hardware, and software setup used for the procedures underscore that the accuracy of 2D-3D registration is noninferior to that of a 3D-3D registration workflow, with advantages in terms of radiation exposure, intraoperative time demand, and ease of use.

Intraoperative contrast-enhanced cone beam computed tomography to assess technical success during endovascular aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to analyze the use of contrast-enhanced cone beam computed tomography (ceCBCT) during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and to compare this imaging modality with standard completion digital subtraction angiography (cDSA) and postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) regarding the detection of endograft-associated complications. METHODS: Between September 2012 and April 2015, ceCBCT was used in 98 EVAR patients in addition to cDSA and CTA. Endoleaks, intraluminal thrombus and limb stenoses, contrast agent use, and radiation exposure were recorded for all modalities. RESULTS: cDSA detected 16 (16.3%) endoleaks; ceCBCT, 35 (35.7%) endoleaks; and CTA, 22 (22.4%) endoleaks. All endoleaks identified by cDSA or CTA were also seen on ceCBCT. ceCBCT detected intraluminal thrombus in three patients (none in cDSA or CTA) and previously undetected limb stenoses in three patients. It prompted intraoperative interventions in 7 of 98 patients (7.1%). Replacing cDSA and CTA by ceCBCT would have caused a 39% reduction of in-hospital contrast agent volume in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: ceCBCT can reliably detect all endograft-associated complications during EVAR. It offers the chance for immediate revision of remediable problems in a relevant proportion of patients and could thus reduce early reintervention rates. ceCBCT can safely replace early follow-up CTA and thereby reduce in-hospital use of contrast media.

Feasibility and accuracy of fusion imaging during thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate accuracy and feasibility of fusion imaging during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). METHODS: From January 2013 to January 2015 fusion imaging was used in 18 TEVAR procedures. Patients were prospectively enrolled for the survey and informed consent was obtained. Planning of the procedure and computed tomography (CT) angiography (CTA) segmentation with determination of all relevant surgical landmarks that should be displayed on fusion imaging was done using the preoperative CTA data. The registration was done with an intraoperative noncontrast-enhanced cone beam CT and CTA (three-dimensional [3D]-3D registration; n = 15) or with two fluoroscopic images in anteroposterior and lateral projection and the CTA (two-dimensional-3D registration; n = 3). An intraoperative digital subtraction angiography was performed to adjust fusion imaging and to allow accuracy measurement. RESULTS: Fusion imaging was possible in all included patients. The median dose for noncontrast-enhanced cone beam CT imaging was 28.6 Gy/cm(2) (range, 17.9-43.3) and 0.46 Gy cm(2) for two fluoroscopic images in the two-dimensional-3D group. Full accuracy was achieved in two cases (11%), with a median deviation of 11.7 mm (range, 0.0-37.2). Manual realignment was possible in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: This early experience shows that fusion imaging is feasible in TEVAR procedures using different registration methods. However, it shows a significant deviation in thoracic procedures because of different sources of error, making confirmation of fusion overlay with a digital subtraction angiography necessary in any case.