A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Multislice CT angiography in the follow-up of fenestrated endovascular grafts: effect of slice thickness on 2D and 3D visualization of the fenestration stents. | LitMetric

Purpose: To investigate the effect of multislice computed tomography (CT) protocols on the visualization of target vessel stents in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treated with fenestrated endovascular grafts.

Methods: Twenty-one patients (19 men; mean age 75 years, range 63-86) undergoing fenestrated endovascular repair of AAA were retrospectively studied. Multislice CT angiography was performed with several protocols, and the section thicknesses used in each were compared to identify any relationship between slice thickness and target vessel stents visualized on 2-dimensional (2D) axial, multiplanar reformatted (MPR), and 3-dimensional (3D) virtual intravascular endoscopy (VIE) images. Image quality was assessed based on the degree of artifacts and their effect on the ability to visualize the configuration, intra-aortic location, and intraluminal appearance of the target vessel stents and measure their protrusion into the aortic lumen.

Results: There were 7 different multislice CT scanning protocols employed in the 21 patients (25 datasets, with 2 sets of follow-up images in 4 patients). The slice thicknesses and numbers (n) of studies included were 0.5 (n=3), 0.625 (n=6), 1.0 (n=1), 1.25 (n=9), 2.5 (n=3), 3.0 (n=1), and 5.0 mm (n=2). Of these CT protocols, images (especially 2D/3D reconstructions) acquired at 2.5, 3.0, and 5.0 mm were significantly compromised by interference from artifacts. Images acquired with a slice thickness of 1.0 or 1.25 mm were scored equal to or lower than those acquired with a submillimeter section thickness (0.5 or 0.625 mm), with minor degrees of artifacts resulting in acceptable image quality.

Conclusion: Visualization of the target vessel stents depends on the appropriate selection of multislice CT scanning protocols. Our results showed that studies performed with a slice thickness of 1.0 or 1.25 mm produced similar image quality to those with a thickness of 0.5 or 0.625 mm. Submillimeter slices are not recommended in imaging patients treated with fenestrated stent-grafts, as they did not add additional information to the visualization.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1583/08-2432.1DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

slice thickness
16
target vessel
16
vessel stents
16
fenestrated endovascular
12
multislice angiography
8
visualization target
8
treated fenestrated
8
image quality
8
multislice scanning
8
scanning protocols
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!