Three- and Two-Dimensional Ultrasound is as Accurate as Computed Tomography in Aortic Sac Assessment after Endovascular Aortic Repair

Background: To compare aortic sac changes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) assessed by three-dimensional ultrasound (3D-US), two-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US), and traditional computed tomographic angiography (CTA).Methods: Using volume assessment with three-dimensional CTA (3D-CTA-volume) as the gold standard, this study investigated aortic sac changes at three and 12 months after EVAR with three different ultrasound methods (2D-US anterior-posterior (AP) diameter, 3D-US AP centerline diameter, and 3D-US partial volume), and traditional CT multiplanar outer-to-outer diameter (CT-MPR OTO diameter).From august 1st, 2011 to January 2014, consecutive EVAR patients (n = 113) were available for analysis in two time intervals; 1) between preoperative and three-month follow-up and 2) between three and 12 month follow-up.Results: The risk of missing true aortic sac growth (false negative finding) at three-month postoperative visit using 3D-US partial volume, 3D-US AP centerline diameter, 2D-US AP diameter, and CT-MPR OTO diameter was 19%, 21%, 22%, and 18%, respectively. Corresponding low sensitivities (0% to 21%) and kappa-values (<0.50) in detecting aortic sac changes were found. The risk of missing true growth between three and 12 months were lower (6%, 5%, 6%, and 6%, respectively), and matching sensitivities 33%, 33%, 17%, and 17%, respectively.Conclusions: All tested methods for aortic sac changes were as good as traditional CT-MPR OTO diameter and corresponded poorly with 3D-CTA-volume at three months postoperative visit but substantially better after 12 months where the residual sac change was more profound.