Performance of a feature-based algorithm for 3D-3D registration of CT angiography to cone-beam CT for endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms

Advanced Imaging Techniques for Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair: Preoperative, Intraoperative and Postoperative Advancements

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) requires extensive preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative imaging for planning, surveillance, and detection of endo-leaks. There have been manyadvancements in imaging modalities to achieve this purpose. This review discussed different imaging modalities used at different stages of treatment of complex EVAR.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review of all the imaging modalities utilized in EVAR by searching various databases.

RESULTS

Preoperative techniques include analysis of images obtained via modified central line using analysis software and intravascular ultrasound. Fusion imaging (FI), carbon dioxide (CO2) angiography, intravascular ultrasound, and Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) technology have been crucial in obtaining real-time imaging for the detection of endo-leaks during operative procedures. Conventional imaging modalities like computed tomography (CT) angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance (MR) angiography are still employed for postoperative surveillance along with computational fluid dynamics and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). The advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have been the breakthrough in developing robust imaging applications.

CONCLUSIONS

This review explains the advantages, disadvantages, and side-effect profile of the abovementioned imaging modalities.

Automated image fusion during endovascular aneurysm repair: a feasibility and accuracy study

PURPOSE

Image fusion merges preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) with live fluoroscopy during endovascular procedures to function as an overlay 3D roadmap. However, in most current systems, the registration between imaging modalities is performed manually by vertebral column matching which can be subjective, inaccurate and time consuming depending on experience. Our objective was to evaluate feasibility and accuracy of image-based automated 2D-3D image fusion between preoperative CTA and intraoperative fluoroscopy based on vertebral column matching.

METHODS

A single-center study with offline procedure data was conducted in 10 consecutive patients which had endovascular aortic repair in which we evaluated unreleased automated fusion software provided by Philips (Best, the Netherlands). Fluoroscopy and digital subtraction angiography images were collected after the procedures and the vertebral column was fused fully automatically. Primary endpoints were feasibility and accuracy of bone alignment (mm). Secondary endpoint was vascular alignment (mm) between the lowest renal artery orifices. Clinical non-inferiority was defined at a mismatch of < 1 mm.

RESULTS

In total, 87 automated measurements and 40 manual measurements were performed on vertebrae T12-L5 in all 10 patients. Manual correction was needed in 3 of the 10 patients due to incomplete visibility of the vertebral edges in the fluoroscopy image. Median difference between automated fusion and manual fusion was 0.1 mm for bone alignment (p = 0.94). The vascular alignment was 4.9 mm (0.7-17.5 mm) for manual and 5.5 mm (1.0-14.0 mm) for automated fusion. This did not improve, due to the presence of stiff wires and stent graft.

CONCLUSION

Automated image fusion was feasible when all vertebral edges were visible. Accuracy was non-inferior to manual image fusion regarding bone alignment. Future developments should focus on intraoperative image-based correction of vascular alignment.

Image Fusion During Standard and Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair, to Fuse or Not to Fuse? A Meta-analysis and Additional Data From a Single-Center Retrospective Cohort

PURPOSE

To determine if image fusion will reduce contrast volume, radiation dose, and fluoroscopy and procedure times in standard and complex (fenestrated/branched) endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed in December 2019 to identify articles describing results of standard and complex EVAR procedures using image fusion compared with a control group. Study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the methodological quality of the included publications were performed by 2 reviewers working independently. Primary outcomes of the pooled analysis were contrast volume, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and procedure time. Eleven articles were identified comprising 1547 patients. Data on 140 patients satisfying the study inclusion criteria were added from the authors' center. Mean differences (MDs) are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

For standard EVAR, contrast volume and procedure time showed a significant reduction with an MD of -29 mL (95% CI -40.5 to -18.5, p<0.001) and -11 minutes (95% CI -21.0 to -1.8, p<0.01), respectively. For complex EVAR, significant reductions in favor of image fusion were found for contrast volume (MD -79 mL, 95% CI -105.7 to -52.4, p<0.001), fluoroscopy time (MD -14 minutes, 95% CI -24.2 to -3.5, p<0.001), and procedure time (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -75.7 to -27.9, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis confirm that image fusion significantly reduces contrast volume, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time in complex EVAR but only contrast volume and procedure time for standard EVAR. Though a reduction was suggested, the radiation dose was not significantly affected by the use of fusion imaging in either standard or complex EVAR.