Image orientation for three-dimensional echocardiography of congenital heart disease

  • John Simpson
  • Owen Miller
  • Aaron Bell
  • Hannah Bellsham-Revell
  • Jackie McGhie
  • Folkert Meijboom
Original Paper

Abstract

To date there has been little discussion about image orientation for three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography when applied to congenital heart lesions. Anatomic relations cannot be assumed in congenital heart disease and image cropping during post processing may by necessity remove external or even internal anatomic references. We present an approach to consistent anatomic orientation which is both intuitive and consistent with regard to superior–inferior, anterior–posterior and left–right axes. Such anatomic orientation is also concordant with other common 3D imaging modes such as cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Views derived from standard cross sectional echocardiography have such universal familiarity that analogous 3D projections of these views may be retained but novel hitherto unavailable views such as en face views of the cardiac septums or atrioventricular valves may be projected using anatomic orientation.

Keywords

Three dimensional echocardiography Congenital heart disease Image orientation 

References

  1. 1.
    Simpson JM (2011) Congenital heart disease in children. In: Buck T, Franke A, Monaghan M (eds) Three-dimensional echocardiography. Springer, Berlin, pp 201–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meijboom FJ, van der Zwaan H, McGhie J (2011) Three-dimensional echocardiography in adult congenital heart disease. In: Buck T, Franke A, Monaghan M (eds) Three-dimensional echocardiography. Springer, Berlin, pp 175–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simpson JM, Miller O (2011) Three-dimensional echocardiography in congenital heart disease. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 104(1):45–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hung J et al (2007) 3D echocardiography: a review of the current status and future directions. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 20(3):213–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lai WW et al (2006) Guidelines and standards for performance of a pediatric echocardiogram: a report from the Task Force of the Pediatric Council of the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 19(12):1413–1430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nanda NC et al (2004) Examination protocol for three-dimensional echocardiography. Echocardiography 21(8):763–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buck T (2011) Basic principles and practical application. In: Buck T, Franke A, Monaghan M (eds) Three-dimensional echocardiography. Springer, Berlin, pp 21–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson RH, Razavi R, Taylor AM (2004) Cardiac anatomy revisited. J Anat 205(3):159–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lang RM et al (2006) Recommendations for chamber quantification. Eur J Echocardiogr 7(2):79–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vaidyanathan B, Simpson JM, Kumar RK (2009) Transesophageal echocardiography for device closure of atrial septal defects: case selection, planning, and procedural guidance. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2(10):1238–1242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mathewson JW et al (2004) Absent posteroinferior and anterosuperior atrial septal defect rims: Factors affecting nonsurgical closure of large secundum defects using the Amplatzer occluder. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 17(1):62–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Simpson
    • 1
  • Owen Miller
    • 1
  • Aaron Bell
    • 1
  • Hannah Bellsham-Revell
    • 1
  • Jackie McGhie
    • 2
  • Folkert Meijboom
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Congenital Heart DiseaseEvelina Children’s Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of CardiologyThoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Departments of Cardiology and PediatricsUniversity Medical Centre UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations