Advanced Search
ZHANG Y, ZHOU C, LIU C, et al. Application value of single energy metal artifact reduction in the follow-up CT angiography after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm combined with coil embolization[J]. Chin J Clin Med, 2024, 31(6): 984-989. DOI: 10.12025/j.issn.1008-6358.2024.20240920
Citation: ZHANG Y, ZHOU C, LIU C, et al. Application value of single energy metal artifact reduction in the follow-up CT angiography after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm combined with coil embolization[J]. Chin J Clin Med, 2024, 31(6): 984-989. DOI: 10.12025/j.issn.1008-6358.2024.20240920

Application value of single energy metal artifact reduction in the follow-up CT angiography after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm combined with coil embolization

  • Objective To explore the application value of single energy metal artifact reduction technology (SEMAR) in the CTA follow-up of complex abdominal aortic aneurysm endovascular repair (EVAR) combined with coil embolization using 320-slice CT spiral scanning mode.
    Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on the images of 14 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm and 2 patients with internal iliac artery aneurysm who underwent abdominal CTA reexamination 30 days after EVAR combined with coil embolization at Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University from August 2023 to February 2024. The original data were reconstructed using a hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm (non-SEMAR group) and a combined reconstruction and SEMAR algorithm (SEMAR group), and the artifact index (AI), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and subjective scores between the two groups were compared.
    Results The AI values of up, down, left, right around the spring coil and adjacent aortic cavity in the SEMAR group were lower than those in the non-SEMAR group (38.16±19.20 vs 89.29±30.93, 30.75±16.28 vs 82.62±28.01, 33.61±16.18 vs 74.90±26.28, 44.99±15.91 vs 87.72±33.70, and 24.49±12.58 vs 47.29±13.55; P<0.001), and the CNRs in the SEMAR group were higher than those in the non-SEMAR group (2.47±2.15 vs 1.01±0.74, 2.32±2.01 vs 0.72±0.50, 4.93±4.15 vs 1.38±0.79, 4.10±4.14 vs 1.56±1.18, and 19.91±11.01 vs 11.01±7.77; P<0.05). Compared with the non-SEMAR group, the subjective scores of image in the SEMAR group were higher (P<0.001).
    Conclusions SEMAR technology can significantly reduce the artifact of spring coil, improve the clarity of tumors, visceral arteries, stents, and internal leaks images, and has important clinical significance for follow-up after EVAR surgery.
  • loading

Catalog

    Turn off MathJax
    Article Contents

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return