Article Text

Download PDFPDF

P071/150  Biplane projection for intracranial aneurysm treatments – same, same, but diffrent?
  1. Roland Schwab1,
  2. Klebingat Stefan1,
  3. Elie Diamandis1,
  4. Harald Paukisch1,
  5. Maximilian Thormann1,
  6. Hannes Nordmeyer2,
  7. Christina Wendl3,
  8. Donald Lobsien4,
  9. Tobias Breyer5,
  10. Frans Van den Bergh6,
  11. Daniel Behme1
  1. 1University Hospital Magdeburg, University Clinic for Neuroradiology, Magdeburg, Germany
  2. 2radprax | Solingen | Radiologie | Praxis Birkerstraße, Institut für Neuroradiologie, Solingen, Germany
  3. 3University Hospital Regensburg, Institut für Röntgendiagnostik, Regensburg, Germany
  4. 4Helios Klinkum Erfurt, Diagnostische und interventionelle Radiologie und Neuroradiologie, Erfurt, Germany
  5. 5Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH Clinic Center Mitte, Klinik für Radiologie und Neuroradiologie, Dortmund, Germany
  6. 6UZ Brussel, Radiologie, Jette, Belgium
  7. *Live Presentation


Introduction Clear delineation of intracranial aneurysms (IA) on angiographic working projections is essential for endovascular treatment to achieve successful occlusion and avoid complications. However, only little is known about what different interventional neuroradiologists (INRs) understand as optimal biplane IA working projections and how much the chosen working projections differ for a given anatomy.

Aim of Study The aim of our study is to gain a better understanding and objectification of biplane working projections, chosen for endovascular aneurysm treatment between different INRs, to develop an AI-assisted treatment projection optimization considering the possibility of improving head positioning.

Methods Five INRs used a self-developed software solution to simulate the best possible, IA working projection for 20 aneurysms. Due to the heterogeneity between the INRs, 17 biplane and 3 monoplane representative median projections were selected. In the next step, the usability of different viewing angels from 5° to 30° were rated as yes-no question.

Results The average proportion of agreement to remain usable per angle across all raters are as follows: 81.5% (5°), 66.4% (10°) down to 34.4% (30°).

Conclusion There is a wide variation between the raters for the initial treatment projection. Even if the angle of an IA projection differs by only 10°, already 33.6% of the resulting projections are considered as inappropriate compared to the primary selected projection. Up to a 5° angular change, the resulting IA projection is still feasible. Based on these results, an automated head repositioning suggestion can be considered in anatomically difficult conditions despite possible manual inaccuracies.

Disclosure of Interest Nothing to disclose.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.