Skip to main content
Log in

Observer Variability of Iliac Artery Measurements in Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

  • Papers Presented to the Peripheral Vascular Surgery Society—Winter Meeting
  • Published:
Annals of Vascular Surgery

Abstract

Accurate measurement of iliac arteries is essential for successful delivery of aortic endografts without iliac limb endoleak. Although intravascular ultrasound measurements may be reliable, they require an invasive procedure. Therefore, helical computed tomography (hCT) has become the most commonly used modality for obtaining preprocedure arterial diameter measurements. The accuracy of hCT remains ill-defined, however, because an anatomic gold standard with which to compare the measurements is not available. We therefore assessed inter- and intraobserver variability of hCT measurements. We also applied accepted cutoff measurements to determine the clinical impact of observer variability in predicting the need for adjunctive iliac access and iliac limb seal procedures. hCT scans were analyzed in 30 patients who had undergone successful placement of a bifurcated endograft (26 Ancure, 4 Aneurex). Mean age of patients was 75 years, the male/female ratio was 27:3. Three blinded observers measured transverse diameters (maximal aortic aneurysm [Amax], narrowest infrarenal aortic neck [Amin], maximal common iliac [Imax], and narrowest iliac artery [Imin]). Inter- and intraobserver variability was calculated as standard deviation of mean pair differences according to the method of Bland and Altman. The true incidence of adjunctive procedures to facilitate delivery of the device into the aorta and ensure iliac limb seal was compared with that predicted by the observers to obtain sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for the measurements. Interobserver variability of iliac measurements was higher than intraobserver variability (p < 0.05). Interobserver variability of Amax ranged from 4.37 to 10.73% of the mean Amax. Conversely, variability of Amin was 8.91-18.89%, that of Imax was 12.11-22.23%, and that of Imin was 10.51-18.73% (p < 0.05 vs. Amax). Therefore, interobserver variability influenced aortic neck and iliac diameter twice as much as it did aneurysm measurements. To successfully place 30 endografts we performed 8 adjunctive access procedures (4 angioplasties, 4 common iliac artery conduits) and 17 adjunctive procedures in 60 limbs to ensure limb seal (9 unilateral IIA coil embolizations, 8 stents). We used 8.5 (Ancure) and 8.0 (Aneurex) mm as lower limits of acceptability for uncomplicated access, and 13.4 (Ancure) and 16 (Aneurex) mm as the upper limits of acceptability for uncomplicated iliac limb seal. These limits were applied to measurements from the three observers to predict need for adjunctive access or iliac seal procedures in this cohort. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of these observer measurements for a need to perform additional access procedures were 0.67, 0.80, 0.55, and 0.87; the same values for a need to perform additional seal procedures were 0.71, 0.74, 0.52, and 0.86, respectively. Interobserver variability was approximately 20% of measured iliac diameter. This explains why helical CT measurements were noted to have low PPV in predicting the need for an adjunctive access or limb seal procedure. These data establish PPV and NPV for hCT and provide objective evidence for the need to improve iliac artery imaging. Until more accurate imaging becomes available, we recommend oversizing of iliac limbs by 10-20% in patients with wide landing zones and that surgeons be prepared to resolve unexpected iliac artery access or seal problems intraoperatively.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. HA Fink FA Lederle CS Roth CA Bowles DB Nelson MA Haas (2000) ArticleTitleThe accuracy of physical examination to detect abdominal aortic aneurysm Arch. Intern. Med. 160 833–836 Occurrence Handle10.1001/archinte.160.6.833 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7pvFGntg%3D%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. P Jaakkola M Hippelainen P Farin H Rytkonen S Kainulainen K Partanen (1996) ArticleTitleInterobserver variability in measuring the dimensions of the abdominal aorta: comparison of ultrasound and computed tomography Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 12 230–237 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymA2cjptl0%3D Occurrence Handle8760988

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. FA Lederle SE Wilson GR Johnson et al. (1995) ArticleTitleVariability in measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group J. Vasc. Surg. 21 945–952 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqB1Mrht1Q%3D Occurrence Handle7776474

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. GM Grimshaw MF Docker (1992) ArticleTitleAccurate screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm Clin. Phys. Physiol. Meas. 13 135–138 Occurrence Handle10.1088/0143-0815/13/2/005 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By2A283hsFw%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. K Singh KH Bonaa S Solberg DG Sorlie L Bjork (1998) ArticleTitleIntra- and interobserver variability in ultrasound measurements of abdominal aortic diameter. The Tromso Study Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 15 497–504 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1czisVSluw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9659884

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. EK Yucel DJ Fillmore TA Knox AC Waltman (1991) ArticleTitleSonographic measurement of abdominal aortic diameter: interobserver variability J. Ultrasound Med. 10 681–683 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By2C3MvhtFA%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. NJ Aarts GW Schurink LJ Schultze Kool (1999) ArticleTitleAbdominal aortic aneurysm measurements for endovascular repair: intra- and interobserver variability of CT measurements Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 18 475–480 Occurrence Handle10.1053/ejvs.1999.0883 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7gsFKgsA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10637142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. K Singh BK Jacobsen S Solberg et al. (2003) ArticleTitleIntra- and interobserver variability in the measurements of abdominal aortic and common iliac artery diameter with computed tomography. The Tromso study Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 25 399–407 Occurrence Handle10.1053/ejvs.2002.1856 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s7psVOmtQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle12713777

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. M Bland D Altman (1986) ArticleTitleStatistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement Lancet 1 307–310 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BimC3MjhvFc%3D Occurrence Handle2868172

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Medtronic AVE. Instructions for use. AneuRx Stent Graft: Physician Training Manual. 2003, 7.1

  11. Guidant Corporation. Patient selection and graft sizing. Ancure Endograft System: Physician Training Manual. 2001, II.9

  12. WL Gore & Associates. Patient selection and treatment. Excluder Bifurcated Endoprosthesis. Gore, 2003, 20–24

  13. FA Lederle GR Johnson SE Wilson et al. (1997) ArticleTitleRelationship of age, gender, race, and body size to infrarenal aortic diameter. The Aneurysm Detection and Management (ADAM) Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Investigators J. Vasc. Surg. 26 595–601 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FitVehuw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9357459

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. B Sonesson F Hansen H Stale T Lanne (1993) ArticleTitleCompliance and diameter in the human abdominal aorta—the influence of age and sex Eur. J. Vasc. Surg. 7 690–697 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByuD1MvpvFU%3D Occurrence Handle8270073

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. B Sonesson T Resch T Lanne K Ivancev (1998) ArticleTitleThe fate of the infrarenal aortic neck after open aneurysm surgery J. Vasc. Surg. 28 889–894 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FislOjtA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9808858

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. B Sonesson T Sandgren T Lanne (1999) ArticleTitleAbdominal aortic aneurysm wall mechanics and their relation to risk of rupture Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 18 487–493 Occurrence Handle10.1053/ejvs.1999.0872 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7gsFKgtg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10637144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. KA Wilson KR Woodburn CV Ruckley FG Fowkes (1997) ArticleTitleExpansion rates of abdominal aortic aneurysm: current limitations in evaluation Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 13 521–526 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiA2sbptVA%3D Occurrence Handle9236703

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brajesh K. Lal MD.

About this article

Cite this article

Lal, B.K., Cerveira, J.J., Seidman, C. et al. Observer Variability of Iliac Artery Measurements in Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg 18, 644–652 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10016-004-0102-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10016-004-0102-x

Keywords

Navigation