Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Systematic Review of Protocols for the Three-Dimensional Morphologic Assessment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using Computed Tomographic Angiography

  • Review Article/State of the Art
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The morphology of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) directly influences the perioperative outcome and long-term durability of endovascular aneurysm repair. A variety of methods have been proposed for the characterization of AAA morphology using reconstructed three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) images. At present, there is lack of consensus as to which of these methods is most applicable to clinical practice or research. The purpose of this review was to evaluate existing protocols that used 3D CT images in the assessment of various aspects of AAA morphology. An electronic search was performed, from January 1996 to the end of October 2010, using the Embase and Medline databases. The literature review conformed to PRISMA statement standards. The literature search identified 604 articles, of which 31 studies met inclusion criteria. Only 15 of 31 studies objectively assessed reproducibility. Existing published protocols were insufficient to define a single evidence-based methodology for preoperative assessment of AAA morphology. Further development and expert consensus are required to establish a standardized and validated protocol to determine precisely how morphology relates to outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Prinssen M, Verhoeven EL, Buth J et al (2004) A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med 351:1607–1618

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Patterson BO, Holt PJ, Hinchliffe R et al (2008) Predicting risk in elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review of current evidence. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 36:637–645

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Patterson BO, Holt PJ, Hinchliffe R et al (2010) Existing risk prediction methods for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair do not predict short-term outcome following endovascular repair. J Vasc Surg 52:25–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barnes M, Boult M, Maddern G, Fitridge R (2008) A model to predict outcomes for endovascular aneurysm repair using preoperative variables. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 35:571–579

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Karthikesalingam A, Holt PJ, Hinchliffe RJ et al (2010) Risk of reintervention after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Br J Surg 97:657–663

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Boult M, Maddern G, Barnes M, Fitridge R (2007) Factors affecting survival after endovascular aneurysm repair: results from a population based audit. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 34:156–162

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Parr A, Jayaratne C (2011) Buttner P JG (2010) Comparison of volume and diameter measurement in assessing small abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion examined using computed tomographic angiography. Eur J Radiol 79:42–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Parker MV, O’Donnell SD, Chang AS et al (2005) What imaging studies are necessary for abdominal aortic endograft sizing? A prospective blinded study using conventional computed tomography, aortography, and three-dimensional computed tomography. J Vasc Surg 41:199–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Beebe HG, Kritpracha B (2004) Computed tomography scanning for endograft planning: evolving toward three-dimensional, single source imaging. Semin Vasc Surg 17:126–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cayne NS, Veith FJ, Lipsitz EC et al (2004) Variability of maximal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements on CT scan: significance and methods to minimize. J Vasc Surg 39:811–815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Velazquez OC, Woo EY, Carpenter JP et al (2004) Decreased use of iliac extensions and reduced graft junctions with software-assisted centerline measurements in selection of endograft components for endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 40:222–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chaikof EL, Blankensteijn JD, Harris PL et al (2002) Reporting standards for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 35:1048–1060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chaikof EL, Fillinger MF, Matsumura JS et al (2002) Identifying and grading factors that modify the outcome of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 35:1061–1066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lutz AM, Willmann JK, Pfammatter T et al (2003) Evaluation of aortoiliac aneurysm before endovascular repair: comparison of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography with multidetector row computed tomographic angiography with an automated analysis software tool. J Vasc Surg 37:619–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Atar E, Belenky A, Hadad M et al (2006) MR angiography for abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms: assessment before endovascular repair in patients with impaired renal function. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:386–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Paslawski M, Krzyzanowski K, Zlomaniec J (2004) Diagnostic value of multiplanar CT reconstructions in the assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Univ Mariae Curie Sklodowska Med 59:91–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Raman KG, Missig-Carroll N, Richardson T et al (2003) Color-flow duplex ultrasound scan versus computed tomographic scan in the surveillance of endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 38:645–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wever JJ, Blankensteijn JD, Broeders IA, Eikelboom BC (1999) Length measurements of the aorta after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 18:481–486

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wever JJ, Blankensteijn JD, Rijn JCv et al (2000) Inter- and intraobserver variability of CT measurements obtained after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:1279–1282

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Beebe HG, Kritpracha B, Serres S et al (2000) Endograft planning without preoperative arteriography: a clinical feasibility study. J Endovasc Ther 7:8–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tillich M, Bell RE, Paik DS et al (2001) Iliac arterial injuries after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: correlation with iliac curvature and diameter. Radiology 219:129–136

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wolf YG, Tillich M, Lee WA et al (2001) Impact of aortoiliac tortuosity on endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: evaluation of 3D computer-based assessment. J Vasc Surg 34:509–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wolf YG, Tillich M, Lee WA et al (2002) Changes in aneurysm volume after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg 36:305–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Filis KA, Arko FR, Rubin GD et al (2002) Aortoiliac angulation and the need for secondary procedures to secure stent graft fixation: which angle is important? Int Angiol 21:349–354

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Aziz I, Lee J, Lee JT et al (2003) Accuracy of three-dimensional simulation in the sizing of aortic endoluminal devices. Ann Vasc Surg 17:129–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee JT, Aziz IN, Haukoos JS et al (2003) Volume regression of abdominal aortic aneurysms and its relation to successful endoluminal exclusion. J Vasc Surg 38:1254–1263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wyers MC, Fillinger MF, Schermerhorn ML et al (2003) Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm without preoperative arteriography. J Vasc Surg 38:730–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kritpracha B, Beebe HG, Comerota AJ (2004) Aortic diameter is an insensitive measurement of early aneurysm expansion after endografting. J Endovasc Ther 11:184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fillinger M (2006) Three-dimensional analysis of enlarging aneurysms after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the Gore Excluder Pivotal clinical trial. J Vasc Surg 43:888–895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tournoij E, Slisatkorn W, Prokop M et al (2007) Thrombus and calcium in aortic aneurysm necks: validation of a scoring system in a Dutch cohort study. Vasc Endovasc Surg 41:120–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Diehm N, Katzen BT, Samuels S et al (2008) Sixty-four-detector CT angiography of infrarenal aortic neck length and angulation: prospective analysis of interobserver variability. J Vasc Interv Radiol 19:1283–1288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. van Prehn J, van der Wal MB, Vincken K et al (2008) Intra- and interobserver variability of aortic aneurysm volume measurement with fast CTA postprocessing software. J Endovasc Ther 15:504–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. van Keulen JW, van Prehn J, Prokop M et al (2009) Potential value of aneurysm sac volume measurements in addition to diameter measurements after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther 16:506–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wyss TR, Dick F, England A et al (2009) Three-dimensional imaging core laboratory of the endovascular aneurysm repair trials: validation of methodology. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 38:724–731

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. van Keulen JW, Moll FL, Tolenaar JL et al (2010) Validation of a new standardized method to measure proximal aneurysm neck angulation. J Vasc Surg 51:821–828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Diehm N, Baumgartner I, Silvestro A et al (2005) Automated software supported versus manual aorto-iliac diameter measurements in CT angiography of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms: assessment of inter- and intraobserver variation. Vasa 34:255–261

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Manning BJ, Kristmundsson T, Sonesson B, Resch T (2009) Abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter: a comparison of ultrasound measurements with those from standard and three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction. J Vasc Surg 50:263–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dillavou ED, Buck DG, Muluk SC, Makaroun MS (2003) Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional CT scan for aortic measurement. J Endovasc Ther 10:531–538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Prinssen M, Verhoeven EL, Verhagen HJ, 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 26:184–187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bargellini I, Cioni R, Petruzzi P et al (2005) Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: analysis of aneurysm volumetric changes at mid-term follow-up. Cardiovasc Intervent Radio 28:426–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Higashiura W, Kichikawa K, Sakaguchi S et al (2009) Accuracy of centerline of flow measurement for sizing of the Zenith AAA endovascular graft and predictive factor for risk of inadequate sizing. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 32:441–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Diehm N, Herrmann P, Dinkel HP, Multidetector CT (2004) angiography versus digital subtraction angiography for aortoiliac length measurements prior to endovascular AAA repair. J Endovasc Ther 11:527–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Whittaker DR, Dwyer J, Fillinger MF (2005) Prediction of altered endograft path during endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with the Gore Excluder. J Vasc Surg 41:575–583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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 77:502–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Boyle JR, Thompson MM, Vallabhaneni SR et al (2011) Pragmatic minimum reporting standards for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther 18:263–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lee WA. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm sizing and case planning using the TeraRecon Aquarius workstation. Vasc Endovasc Surg 41:61–77

  49. Karthikesalingam A, Hinchliffe RJ, Malkawi AH et al (2010) Morphological suitability of patients with aortoiliac aneurysms for endovascular preservation of the internal iliac artery using commercially available iliac branch graft devices. J Endovasc Ther 17:163–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Coenegrachts K, Rigauts H, De Letter J (2003) Prediction of aortoiliac stent graft length: comparison of a semiautomated computed tomography angiography method and calibrated aortography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 27:284–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Young N, Chi KK, Ajaka J et al (2002) Complications with outpatient angiography and interventional procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 25:123–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rubin GD, Paik DS, Johnston PC, Napel S (1998) Measurement of the aorta and its branches with helical CT. Radiology 206:823–829

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Wever JJ, Blankensteijn JD, Th MMWP, Eikelboom BC (2000) Maximal aneurysm diameter follow-up is inadequate after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 20:177–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Albertini J, Kalliafas S, Travis S et al (2000) Anatomical risk factors for proximal perigraft endoleak and graft migration following endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 19:308–312

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Sternbergh WC 3rd, Carter G, York JW et al (2002) Aortic neck angulation predicts adverse outcome with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 35:482–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Boult M, Babidge W, Maddern G, on behalf of the Audit Reference Group et al (2006) Predictors of success following endovascular aneurysm repair: mid-term results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 31:123–129

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Choke E, Munneke G, Morgan R et al (2006) Outcomes of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients with hostile neck anatomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29:975–980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hobo R, Kievit J, Leurs LJ, Buth J (2007) Influence of severe infrarenal aortic neck angulation on complications at the proximal neck following endovascular AAA repair: a EUROSTAR study. J Endovasc Ther 14:1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Fulton JJ, Farber MA, Sanchez LA et al (2006) Effect of challenging neck anatomy on mid-term migration rates in AneuRx endografts. J Vasc Surg 44:932–937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Perdikides T, Georgiadis GS, Avgerinos ED et al (2009) The Aorfix stent-graft to treat infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms with angulated necks and/or tortuous iliac arteries: midterm results. J Endovasc Ther 16:567–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Dillavou ED, Muluk SC, Rhee RY et al (2003) Does hostile neck anatomy preclude successful endovascular aortic aneurysm repair? J Vasc Surg 38:657–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Bowman JN, Silverberg D, Ellozy S et al (2010) The role of anatomic factors in predicting success of endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms. Vasc Endovasc Surg 44:101–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Jayalath RW, Mangan SH, Golledge J (2005) Aortic calcification. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 30:476–488

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Bowden DJ, Aitken SR, Wilkinson IB, Dixon AK (2009) Interobserver variability in the measurement of abdominal aortic calcification using unenhanced CT. Br J Radiol 82(973):69–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Jayalath RW, Jackson P, Golledge J (2006) Quantification of abdominal aortic calcification on CT. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 26:429–430

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Filis KA, Arko FR, Rubin GD, Zarins CK (2003) Three-dimensional CT evaluation for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Quantitative assessment of the infrarenal aortic neck. Acta Chir Belg 103:81–86

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Outcomes Research, St. George’s Vascular Institute, St. George’s Hospital, Blackshaw Road, London, SW17 0QT, UK

    Tamer M. H. Ghatwary, Benjamin O. Patterson, Alan Karthikesalingam, Robert J. Hinchliffe, Ian M. Loftus, Matt M. Thompson & Peter J. E. Holt

  2. Department of Radiology, St. George’s Hospital, Blackshaw Road, London, SW17 0QT, UK

    Robert Morgan

  3. St. George’s Vascular Institute, St. George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, Room 4.007, Blackshaw Road, London, SW17 0QT, UK

    Peter J. E. Holt

Authors
  1. Tamer M. H. Ghatwary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin O. Patterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alan Karthikesalingam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert J. Hinchliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ian M. Loftus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Robert Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Matt M. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Peter J. E. Holt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. E. Holt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ghatwary, T.M.H., Patterson, B.O., Karthikesalingam, A. et al. A Systematic Review of Protocols for the Three-Dimensional Morphologic Assessment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using Computed Tomographic Angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36, 14–24 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0296-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0296-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation