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
Purpose: Although the widespread acceptance of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as a first-line treatment option for a multitude of thoracic aortic diseases, little is known about the consequences of the device implantation on the native aortic anatomy. We propose a comparative analysis of the pre- and postoperative geometry on a clinical series of patients and discuss the potential clinical implications
Methods: CT pre- and postoperative acquisitions of 30 consecutive patients treated by TEVAR for different pathologies (20 thoracic aortic aneurysms, 6 false aneurysms, 3 penetrating ulcers, 1 traumatic rupture) were used to model the vascular geometry. Pre- and postoperative geometries were compared for each patient by pairing and matching the 3D models. An implantation site was identified, and focal differences were detected and described.
Results: Segmentation of the data sets was successfully performed for all 30 subjects. Geometry differences between the pre- and postoperative meshes were depicted in 23 patients (76 %). Modifications at the upper implantation site were detected in 14 patients (47 %), and among them, the implantation site involved the arch (Z0-3) in 11 (78 %).
Conclusion: Modeling the vascular geometry on the basis of imaging data offers an effective tool to perform patient-specific analysis of the vascular geometry before and after the treatment. Future studies will evaluate the consequences of these changes on the aortic function.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00270-013-0601-7 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!