European Radiology

, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp 1594–1601 | Cite as

Impact of contrast injection and stent-graft implantation on reproducibility of volume measurements in semiautomated segmentation of abdominal aortic aneurysm on computed tomography

  • Florence Morin-Roy
  • Claude Kauffmann
  • An Tang
  • Sofiane Hadjadj
  • Olivier Thomas
  • Nicolas Piché
  • Stéphane Elkouri
  • Dan Yang Yang
  • Éric Therasse
  • Gilles SoulezEmail author



To assess the impact of contrast injection and stent-graft implantation on feasibility, accuracy, and reproducibility of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) volume and maximal diameter (D-max) measurements using segmentation software.

Materials and methods

CT images of 80 subjects presenting AAA were divided into four equal groups: with or without contrast enhancement, and with or without stent-graft implantation. Semiautomated software was used to segment the aortic wall, once by an expert and twice by three readers. Volume and D-max reproducibility was estimated by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and accuracy was estimated between the expert and the readers by mean relative errors.


All segmentations were technically successful. The mean AAA volume was 167.0 ± 82.8 mL and the mean D-max 55.0 ± 10.6 mm. Inter- and intraobserver ICCs for volume and D-max measurements were greater than 0.99. Mean relative errors between readers varied between −1.8 ± 4.6 and 0.0 ± 3.6 mL. Mean relative errors in volume and D-max measurements between readers showed no significant difference between the four groups (P ≥ 0.2).


The feasibility, accuracy, and reproducibility of AAA volume and D-max measurements using segmentation software were not affected by the absence of contrast injection or the presence of stent-graft.

Key points

AAA volumetry by semiautomated segmentation is accurate on CT following endovascular repair.

AAA volumetry by semiautomated segmentation is accurate on unenhanced CT.

Standardization of the segmentation technique maximizes the reproducibility of volume measurements.


Aortic aneurysm Computed tomography Contrast media Stents Image processing Computer-assisted 



The scientific guarantor of this publication is Gilles Soulez MD MSc. This study was partly funded by Siemens Medical and Object Research Systems and Nicolas Piché is an employee of Object Research Systems. This study has received funding from a clinical research scholarship (to GS and AT) from Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec (FRSQ), an operating grant from the Ministère du développement économique, de l’innovation et de l’exportation du Québec (MDEIE) (2008-PSVT3-12792) and an operating grant from the CIHR (CIHR/SME Research Program - Operating Grants, 200809). Gilles Soulez and Claude Kauffmann are co-authors of a research patent on the segmentation software reported in this study. Sandra Larrivée and Marie-Pierre Sylvestre (CRCHUM) kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript. This study was approved by the institutional review board but since it was retrospective written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board. Methodology: retrospective, software validation study, performed at one institution.


  1. 1.
    Brewster DC, Cronenwett JL, Hallett JW et al (2003) Guidelines for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Report of a subcommittee of the Joint Council of the American Association for Vascular Surgery and Society for Vascular Surgery. J Vasc Surg 37:1106–1117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katz DA, Littenberg B, Cronenwett JL (1992) Management of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Early surgery vs watchful waiting. JAMA 268:2678–2686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    AR B, Forbes J, Fowkes F (1998) Mortality results for randomised controlled trial of early elective surgery or ultrasonographic surveillance for small abdominal aortic aneurysms. The UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Lancet 352:1649–1655Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nevitt MP, Ballard DJ, Hallett JW (1989) Prognosis of abdominal aortic aneurysms. A population-based study. N Engl J Med 321:1009–1014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brady AR, Thompson SG, Fowkes FGR et al (2004) Abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion: risk factors and time intervals for surveillance. Circulation 110:16–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lederle FA, Freischlag JA, Kyriakides TC et al (2012) Long-term comparison of endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med 367:1988–1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaikof EL, Blankensteijn JD, Harris PL et al (2002) Reporting standards for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 35:1048–1060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wolf YG, Hill BB, Rubin GD et al (2000) Rate of change in abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter after endovascular repair. J Vasc Surg 32:108–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bley T a, Chase PJ, Reeder SB et al (2009) Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: nonenhanced volumetric CT for follow-up. Radiology 253:253–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wever JJ, Blankensteijn JD, Th M, Mali WP, Eikelboom BC (2000) Maximal aneurysm diameter follow-up is inadequate after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 20:177–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kritpracha B, Beebe HG, Comerota AJ (2004) Aortic diameter is an insensitive measurement of early aneurysm expansion after endografting. J Endovasc Ther 11:184–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prinssen M, Verhoeven ELG, Verhagen HJM, Blankensteijn JD (2003) Decision-making in follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair based on diameter and volume measurements: a blinded comparison. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 26:184–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parr A, Jayaratne C, Buttner P, Golledge J (2011) Comparison of volume and diameter measurement in assessing small abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion examined using computed tomographic angiography. Eur J Radiol 79:42–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    White RA, Donayre CE, Walot I et al (2001) Computed tomography assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm morphology after endograft exclusion. J Vasc Surg 33:1–10Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Canì a, Cotta E, Recaldini C et al (2012) Volumetric analysis of the aneurysmal sac with computed tomography in the follow-up of abdominal aortic aneurysms after endovascular treatment. Radiol Med 117:72–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Golledge J, Wolanski P, Parr A, Buttner P (2008) Measurement and determinants of infrarenal aortic thrombus volume. Eur Radiol 18:1987–1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Prehn J, van der Wal MBA, Vincken K et al (2008) Intra- and interobserver variability of aortic aneurysm volume measurement with fast CTA postprocessing software. J Endovasc Ther 15:504–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kauffmann C, Tang A, Dugas A et al (2011) Clinical validation of a software for quantitative follow-up of abdominal aortic aneurysm maximal diameter and growth by CT angiography. Eur J Radiol 77:502–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kauffmann C, Tang A, Therasse E et al (2012) Measurements and detection of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth: accuracy and reproducibility of a segmentation software. Eur J Radiol 81:1688–1694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Agnew SP, Small W, Wang E et al (2010) Renal function and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA): the impact of different management strategies on long-term renal function in the UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) Trials. Ann Surg 251:966–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Canadian Association of Radiologists (2011) Consensus guidelines for the prevention of contrast induced nephropathy. Canadian Association of Radiologists, Ottawa. Accessed 1 Jan 2014
  22. 22.
    Parfrey PS, Griffiths SM, Barrett BJ et al (1989) Contrast material-induced renal failure in patients with diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, or both. A prospective controlled study. N Engl J Med 320:143–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nambi P, Sengupta R, Krajcer Z et al (2011) Non-contrast computed tomography is comparable to contrast-enhanced computed tomography for aortic volume analysis after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 41:460–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Caldwell DP, Pulfer KA, Jaggi GR et al (2005) Aortic aneurysm volume calculation: effect of operator experience. Abdom Imaging 30:259–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florence Morin-Roy
    • 1
  • Claude Kauffmann
    • 2
  • An Tang
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sofiane Hadjadj
    • 1
  • Olivier Thomas
    • 1
  • Nicolas Piché
    • 4
  • Stéphane Elkouri
    • 5
  • Dan Yang Yang
    • 1
  • Éric Therasse
    • 2
    • 6
  • Gilles Soulez
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montréal (CHUM), Hôpital Notre-DameMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Centre de Recherche, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montréal (CRCHUM)University of MontrealMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montréal (CHUM), Hôpital Saint-LucMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Object Research SystemMontrealCanada
  5. 5.Department of Vascular surgeryCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montréal (CHUM), Hôpital Hotel-DieuMontréalCanada
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montréal (CHUM), Hôpital Hotel-DieuMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations