FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2170457866> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2170457866 endingPage "1018" @default.
• W2170457866 startingPage "1012" @default.
• W2170457866 abstract "ObjectiveColor duplex ultrasound (CDU) imaging is a noninvasive alternative to computed tomography (CT) for the detection of endoleak. This study compared CT and CDU imaging in the detection of endoleaks requiring intervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).MethodsAll EVARs performed at our institution from 1996 to 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. CDU and CT scans ≤3 months were paired and the presence of an endoleak and its type were recorded. Clinical follow-up was reviewed and interventions for endoleak were recorded. Interventions were performed for type I, for type II with sac enlargement, and for type III endoleaks. The first analysis of clinical test outcomes used the findings of CT scan as a gold standard and the second used the findings at time of intervention as a gold standard.ResultsDuring the time period reviewed, 496 patients underwent EVAR, and 236 of these had CDU and CT follow-up studies paired ≤3 months of each other. Mean follow-up was 17 months (range, <1-111 months). We reviewed 944 studies or 472 pairs. Eighteen patients (7.6%) required intervention for 19 endoleaks: six type I, 11 type II, and two type III. Early endoleak (≤1 month) requiring reintervention was detected in 1 vs late endoleak (mean, 28 months; range, 0.6-88 months) in 18. All type I and III endoleaks were treated with endovascular cuff or limb extension placement. Three type II endoleaks were treated with open ligation, and coil or glue embolization was used in eight. CDU imaging detected endoleaks requiring intervention in 89% of cases, whereas CT detected endoleak in 58% (P < .05). The ability to correctly identify the type of endoleak as confirmed at time of intervention was 74% with CDU imaging vs 42% by CT (P < .05). CDU, for the detection of endoleak requiring intervention, had a sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 81%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 99%, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 16%, while CT had a sensitivity of 58%, specificity of 87%, NPV of 98%, and PPV of 15%.ConclusionsCDU imaging has a high sensitivity in detecting endoleaks requiring intervention, is better at identifying the type of endoleak, and is an excellent test for graft surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair. Compared with CT scan, CDU imaging in our experience is the preferred test on which to base an intervention for endoleak. Color duplex ultrasound (CDU) imaging is a noninvasive alternative to computed tomography (CT) for the detection of endoleak. This study compared CT and CDU imaging in the detection of endoleaks requiring intervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). All EVARs performed at our institution from 1996 to 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. CDU and CT scans ≤3 months were paired and the presence of an endoleak and its type were recorded. Clinical follow-up was reviewed and interventions for endoleak were recorded. Interventions were performed for type I, for type II with sac enlargement, and for type III endoleaks. The first analysis of clinical test outcomes used the findings of CT scan as a gold standard and the second used the findings at time of intervention as a gold standard. During the time period reviewed, 496 patients underwent EVAR, and 236 of these had CDU and CT follow-up studies paired ≤3 months of each other. Mean follow-up was 17 months (range, <1-111 months). We reviewed 944 studies or 472 pairs. Eighteen patients (7.6%) required intervention for 19 endoleaks: six type I, 11 type II, and two type III. Early endoleak (≤1 month) requiring reintervention was detected in 1 vs late endoleak (mean, 28 months; range, 0.6-88 months) in 18. All type I and III endoleaks were treated with endovascular cuff or limb extension placement. Three type II endoleaks were treated with open ligation, and coil or glue embolization was used in eight. CDU imaging detected endoleaks requiring intervention in 89% of cases, whereas CT detected endoleak in 58% (P < .05). The ability to correctly identify the type of endoleak as confirmed at time of intervention was 74% with CDU imaging vs 42% by CT (P < .05). CDU, for the detection of endoleak requiring intervention, had a sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 81%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 99%, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 16%, while CT had a sensitivity of 58%, specificity of 87%, NPV of 98%, and PPV of 15%. CDU imaging has a high sensitivity in detecting endoleaks requiring intervention, is better at identifying the type of endoleak, and is an excellent test for graft surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair. Compared with CT scan, CDU imaging in our experience is the preferred test on which to base an intervention for endoleak." @default.
• W2170457866 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2170457866 creator A5025639657 @default.
• W2170457866 creator A5055828132 @default.
• W2170457866 creator A5057188589 @default.
• W2170457866 creator A5064098933 @default.
• W2170457866 creator A5076937820 @default.
• W2170457866 date "2009-11-01" @default.
• W2170457866 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2170457866 title "Endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair: Duplex ultrasound imaging is better than computed tomography at determining the need for intervention" @default.
• W2170457866 cites W1836880685 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W1958853595 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W1964954898 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W1988530788 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2008811955 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2018003613 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2021942359 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2048731287 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2062850230 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2079509719 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2085368040 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2095728038 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2098511179 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2099033608 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2100046574 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2103917934 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2111776291 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2120906353 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2133799287 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2153549888 @default.
• W2170457866 cites W2171697262 @default.
• W2170457866 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2009.06.021" @default.
• W2170457866 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19878784" @default.
• W2170457866 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2170457866 type Work @default.
• W2170457866 sameAs 2170457866 @default.
• W2170457866 citedByCount "63" @default.
• W2170457866 countsByYear W21704578662012 @default.
• W2170457866 countsByYear W21704578662013 @default.
• W2170457866 countsByYear W21704578662014 @default.
• W2170457866 countsByYear W21704578662015 @default.
• W2170457866 countsByYear W21704578662016 @default.
• W2170457866 countsByYear W21704578662017 @default.
• W2170457866 countsByYear W21704578662018 @default.
• W2170457866 countsByYear W21704578662019 @default.
• W2170457866 countsByYear W21704578662020 @default.
• W2170457866 countsByYear W21704578662021 @default.
• W2170457866 countsByYear W21704578662022 @default.
• W2170457866 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2170457866 hasAuthorship W2170457866A5025639657 @default.
• W2170457866 hasAuthorship W2170457866A5055828132 @default.
• W2170457866 hasAuthorship W2170457866A5057188589 @default.
• W2170457866 hasAuthorship W2170457866A5064098933 @default.
• W2170457866 hasAuthorship W2170457866A5076937820 @default.
• W2170457866 hasBestOaLocation W21704578661 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConcept C143753070 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConcept C2776035437 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConcept C2776098176 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConcept C2776543907 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConcept C2779993416 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConcept C40993552 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConceptScore W2170457866C126838900 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConceptScore W2170457866C141071460 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConceptScore W2170457866C143753070 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConceptScore W2170457866C2776035437 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConceptScore W2170457866C2776098176 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConceptScore W2170457866C2776543907 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConceptScore W2170457866C2779993416 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConceptScore W2170457866C40993552 @default.
• W2170457866 hasConceptScore W2170457866C71924100 @default.
• W2170457866 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2170457866 hasLocation W21704578661 @default.
• W2170457866 hasLocation W21704578662 @default.
• W2170457866 hasOpenAccess W2170457866 @default.
• W2170457866 hasPrimaryLocation W21704578661 @default.
• W2170457866 hasRelatedWork W1996087410 @default.
• W2170457866 hasRelatedWork W2017103660 @default.
• W2170457866 hasRelatedWork W2036903459 @default.
• W2170457866 hasRelatedWork W2088352857 @default.
• W2170457866 hasRelatedWork W2137190715 @default.
• W2170457866 hasRelatedWork W2757358183 @default.
• W2170457866 hasRelatedWork W4225464103 @default.
• W2170457866 hasRelatedWork W4284966660 @default.
• W2170457866 hasRelatedWork W4362522233 @default.
• W2170457866 hasRelatedWork W3014013020 @default.
• W2170457866 hasVolume "50" @default.
• W2170457866 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2170457866 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2170457866 magId "2170457866" @default.
• W2170457866 workType "article" @default.