Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Radiol. Feb 28, 2016; 8(2): 148-158
Published online Feb 28, 2016. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i2.148
Table 1 Summary of studies comparing between various Dmax measurements
Ref.Journal, yrVariablesMain resultsHighlights
Lederle et al[31]J Vasc Surg, 1995US, CTaxialUS smaller than CTaxial an average of 0.27 cmDifference < 0.2 cm in 44% and > 0.5 cm in 33% of patients
Jaakkola et al[23]Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 1996US, CTaxialMean AAA anteroposterior CTaxial-US difference was 2.6 ± 3.9 mm. Mean transverse difference was 0.8 ± 4.4Interobsever differences < 5 mm in 84% of the US and 91% of the CTaxial recordings
Wanhainen et al[32]Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2002US, CTaxialIn AAAs the mean diameter did not differ significantly95% of differences between US and CTaxial are expected to be < 8.0 mm in anteroposterior and < 10.6 mm in transverse measurements
Sprouse et al[33]J Vasc Surg, 2003US, CTaxialCTaxial (5.69 ± 0.89 cm) significantly larger than US (4.74 ± 0.91 cm)Strong correlation between CTmax and US (r = 0.705), but difference < 1.0 cm in only 51% of cases
Singh et al[34]Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2004US, CTaxialTotal: US smaller by -0.11 mm, aortas < 30 mm: US smaller by -0.64 mm, aortas 30-39 mm: CT smaller by 0.67 mm, aortas > 40 mm: CT smaller 1.09 mmDifferences > 5 mm are expected in 8% of patients. Variability increases with increasing diameter
Sprouse et al[35]Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2004US, CTaxial CTorthMean CTaxial (58.0 mm) significantly larger than USmax (53.9 mm) or CTorth (54.7 mm). Insignificant difference between US and DorthWhen aortic angulation was < 25°, Daxial (55.3 mm), US (54.3 mm), and Dorth (54.1 mm) were similar. When aortic angulation was > 25°, Daxial (60.1 mm) was significantly larger than US (53.8 mm) and Dorth (55.0 mm)
Manning et al[36]J Vasc Surg, 2009US, CTaxial, CTorthUS smaller than CTaxial by 9.6 mm and CTorth by 7.3 mmOf all CT recordings, diameter perpendicular to the maximal ellipse on axial sections most closely approximates the findings of US and therefore this most closely approximates criteria used in the UKSAT
Foo et al[37]Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2011US, CTorthUS underestimated AAA size compared to CTorth by a mean difference of 0.21 (± 0.39) cmLimits of agreement were -0.55 to 0.96 cm, exceeding clinical acceptability. 70% of patients with US < 5.5 cm presented CTorth > 5.5 cm
Kontopodis et al[38]Eur J Radiol, 2013CTaxial, CTorthCTaxial greater than CT orth by 2 mm (range: 0-12.3 mm)20% of the CTs presented Daxial above and Dorth below 5.5 cm which is threshold for repair. Growth rates should be determined with either axial or orthogonal technique not interchanging between methods
Table 2 Summary of studies comparing between orthogonal diameter computed tomography and volume measurements
Ref.Journal, yrPopulationDefinition of size-changeMain results
Wever et al[45]Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2000Post-EVARLOAs37%, discordance Dmax and volume measurements. A decrease in aneurysm size was missed using Dmax in 14% of cases and an increase in 19% of cases
Prinssen et al[46]Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2003Post-EVARNAVolume data resulted in more "good/wait" while Diameter data resulted in more "not good/further diagnostics"-decisions
Kritpracha et al[42]JEVT, 2004Post-EVAR10% for volume, 5 mm for diameterVolume changed in 81% of studies (15% increase and 66% decrease). Dmax changed 57% (4% increase and 53% decrease). Among 20 studies with increased volume, Dmax increased in only 5
van Keulen et al[43]J Endovasc Ther, 2009Post-EVAR5% for volume, 5 mm for diameterVolumetry detected aneurysm growth in 24% and shrinkage in 54% of patients, which was reflected by Dmax in 10.6% and 28% respectively
Parr et al[40]Eur J Radiol, 2011Small AAAsLOAs42% of patients who had increased aortic volume did not display corresponding diameter changes
Kauffmann et al[41]Eur J Radiol, 2012Small AAAsLOAs4/28 (14.3%) patients presented volume increase which was not reflected in Dmax
Kontopodis et al[44]Eur J Radiol, 2014Small AAAsLOAs18% of patients who had increased aortic volume did not display corresponding diameter changes. AAAs presenting rapid volume increase had a 10-fold risk to be operated, while the risk was 3-fold for rapid Dmax increase