ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2023
Volumetric surveillance of brain aneurysms: Pitfalls of MRA.
Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Review of Standard and Advanced Imaging Techniques.Translational stroke research · 2025Review
- Spiral time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography for intracranial vascular imaging: performance compared to conventional Cartesian angiogram.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Clinical Scales in Aneurysm Rupture Prediction.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionUntreated brain aneurysms are usually surveilled with serial MR imaging and evaluated with 2D multiplanar measurements. The assessment of aneurysm growth may be more accurate with volumetric analysis. We evaluated the accuracy of a magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) segmentation pipeline for aneurysm volume measurement and surveillance.
methodsA pipeline to determine aneurysm volume was developed and tested on two aneurysm phantoms imaged with time-of flight (TOF) MRA and 3D rotational angiography (3DRA). The accuracy of the pipeline was then evaluated by reconstructing 10 aneurysms imaged with contrast enhanced-MRA (CE-MRA) and 3DRA. This calibrated and refined post-processing pipeline was subsequently used to analyse aneurysms from our prospectively acquired database. Volume changes above the threshold of error were considered true volume changes. The accuracy of these measurements was analysed.
resultsTOF-MRA reconstructions were not as accurate as CE-MRA reconstructions. When compared to 3DRA, CE-MRA underestimated aneurysm volume by 7.8% and did not accurately register the presence of blebs. Eighteen aneurysms (13 saccular and 5 fusiform) were analysed with the optimized 3D volume reconstruction pipeline, with a mean follow-up time of 11 months. Artifact accounted for 10.2% error in volume measurements using serial CE-MRA. When this margin of error was used to assess aneurysms volume in serial imaging with CE-MRA, only two fusiform aneurysms changed in volume. The variations in volume of these two fusiform aneurysms were caused by intra-mural and intrasaccular thrombosis.
conclusionsCE-MRA and TOF-MRA 3D volume reconstructions may not register minor morphological changes such as the appearance of blebs. CE-MRA underestimates volume by 7.8% compared to 3DRA. Serial CE-MRA volume measurements had a larger margin of error of approximately 10.2%. MRA-based volumetric measurements may not be appropriate for aneurysm surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.