A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

High variability in physician estimations of flow-diverting stent deployment versus PreSize Neurovascular software simulation: a comparison study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Physician variablity in preoperative planning of endovascular implant deployment and associated inaccuracies have not been documented. This study aimed to quantify the variability in accuracy of physician flow diverter (FD) planning and directly compares it with PreSize Neurovascular (Oxford Heartbeat Ltd) software simulations.

Methods: Eight experienced neurointerventionalists (NIs), blinded to procedural details, were provided with preoperative 3D rotational angiography (3D-RA) volumetric data along with images annotated with the distal landing location of a deployed Surpass Evolve (Stryker Neurovascular) FD from 51 patient cases. NIs were asked to perform a planning routine reflecting their normal practice and estimate the stent's proximal landing using volumetric data and the labeled dimensions of the FD used. Equivalent deployed length estimation was performed using PreSize software. NI- and software-estimated lengths were compared with postprocedural observed deployed stent length (control) using Bland-Altman plots. NI assessment agreement was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: The mean accuracy of NI-estimated deployed FD length was 81% (±15%) versus PreSize's accuracy of 95% (±4%), demonstrating significantly higher accuracy for the software (p<0.001). The mean absolute error between estimated and control lengths was 4 mm (±3.5 mm, range 0.03-30.2 mm) for NIs and 1 mm (±0.9 mm, range 0.01-3.9 mm) for PreSize. No discernable trends in accuracy among NIs or across vasculature and aneurysm morphology (size, vessel diameter, tortuousity) were found.

Conclusions: The study quantified experienced physicians' significant variablity in predicting an FD deployment with current planning approaches. In comparison, PreSize-simulated FD deployment was consistently more accurate and reliable, demonstrating its potential to improve standard of practice.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11187387PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2023-020527DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

presize neurovascular
8
volumetric data
8
deployed length
8
high variability
4
variability physician
4
physician estimations
4
estimations flow-diverting
4
flow-diverting stent
4
stent deployment
4
deployment versus
4

Similar Publications