Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diaphragm height varies with arm position: comparison between angiography and CT

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate how elevation of the arms affects diaphragm height.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed angiography and computed tomography (CT) portography data from 44 patients who were treated for hepatocellular carcinoma at our institution from July 2013 to May 2014. Diaphragm height was determined independently by two radiologists as the distance from the upper edge of the first lumbar vertebra to the highest point of the right diaphragm. The differences in height between angiography and CT images were compared using a paired t-test. We also evaluated the influence of table height and distance between X-ray tube and flat panel detector [source–image distance (SID)] on a phantom model.

Results

Diaphragm height was higher on CT images [mean ± standard deviation (SD), 113.2 ± 27.2 mm] than on angiography images (105.5 ± 27.8 mm; P < 0.001). Inter-rater correlation was excellent both in angiography (R = 0.920; P < 0.001) and CT (R = 0.950; P < 0.001) measurements. Table height and SID had no influence on diaphragm height measurements (P = 0.33).

Conclusion

The diaphragm elevation was observed on CT with arm elevation compared with angiography without arm elevation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tajima T, Nishie A, Asayama Y, Ishigami K, Ushijima Y, Kakihara D, et al. Safety margins of hepatocellular carcinoma demonstrated by 3-dimensional fused images of computed tomographic hepatic arteriography/unenhanced computed tomography: prognostic significance in patients who underwent transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2010;34:712–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Abi-Jaoudeh N, Kruecker J, Kadoury S, Kobeiter H, Venkatesan AM, Levy E, et al. Multimodality image fusion-guided procedures: technique, accuracy, and applications. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2012;35:986–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Appelbaum L, Mahgerefteh SY, Sosna J, Goldberg SN. Image-guided fusion and navigation: applications in tumor ablation. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;16:287–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wood BJ, Kruecker J, Abi-Jaoudeh N, Locklin JK, Levy E, Xu S, et al. Navigation systems for ablation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:S257–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Redmond KJ, Song DY, Fox JL, Zhou J, Rosenzweig CN, Ford E. Respiratory motion changes of lung tumors over the course of radiation therapy based on respiration-correlated four-dimensional computed tomography scans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75:1605–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nakamoto Y, Sakamoto S, Okada T, Senda M, Higashi T, Saga T, et al. Clinical value of manual fusion of PET and CT images in patients with suspected recurrent colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:257–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Weiss D, Ruiz CE, Pirelli L, Jelnin V, Fontana GP, Kliger C. Available transcatheter aortic valve replacement technology. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2015;17:488–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rengier F, Geisbüsch P, Schoenhagen P, Müller-Eschner M, Vosshenrich R, Karmonik C, et al. State-of-the-art aortic imaging: part II—applications in transcatheter aortic valve replacement and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Vasa. 2014;43:6–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kauffmann C, Douane F, Therasse E, Lessard S, Elkouri S, Gilbert P, et al. Source of errors and accuracy of a two-dimensional/three-dimensional fusion road map for endovascular aneurysm repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26:544–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaladji A, Dumenil A, Mahé G, Castro M, Cardon A, Lucas A, et al. Safety and accuracy of endovascular aneurysm repair without pre-operative and intra-operative contrast agent. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:255–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ohki T, Tateishi R, Akahane M, Mikami S, Sato M, Uchino K, et al. CT with hepatic arterioportography as a pretreatment examination for hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1305–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Couser JI Jr, Martinez FJ, Celli BR. Respiratory response and ventilatory muscle recruitment during arm elevation in normal subjects. Chest. 1992;101:336–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1369–79.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Matsuura T, Takase K, Ota H, Yamada T, Sato A, Satoh F, et al. Radiologic anatomy of the right adrenal vein: preliminary experience with MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:402–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Daunt N. Adrenal vein sampling: how to make it quick, easy, and successful. Radiographics. 2005;25:S143–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Miyayama S, Yamashiro M, Ikuno M, Okumura K, Yoshida M. Ultraselective transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for small hepatocellular carcinoma guided by automated tumor-feeders detection software: technical success and short-term tumor response. Abdom Imaging. 2014;39(3):645–56. doi:10.1007/s00261-014-0094-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Carrafiello G, Ierardi AM, Duka E, Radaelli A, Floridi C, Bacuzzi A, et al. Usefulness of cone-beam computed tomography and automatic vessel detection software in emergency transarterial embolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39(4):530–7. doi:10.1007/s00270-015-1213-1 (Epub 2015 Oct 20).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology/Center for Advanced Medical Technology, Nippon Medical School, 1-1-5 Sendagi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8603, Japan

    Shiro Onozawa, Satoru Murata, Tatsuo Ueda, Fumie Sugihara, Daisuke Yasui & Hiroyuki Tajima

  2. Division of Radiology, Department of Pathophysiological and Therapeutic Science, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, 1-1-5 Sendagi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Takayoshi Kimura

Authors
  1. Shiro Onozawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Satoru Murata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takayoshi Kimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tatsuo Ueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fumie Sugihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daisuke Yasui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hiroyuki Tajima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shiro Onozawa.

Ethics declarations

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients, and the study was approved by the local ethics committee.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Onozawa, S., Murata, S., Kimura, T. et al. Diaphragm height varies with arm position: comparison between angiography and CT. Jpn J Radiol 34, 724–729 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-016-0579-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-016-0579-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation