You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 15, Issue Suppl 2
  • P122/250  Man Vs machine: high variability in physician estimations of flow diverting stent deployment vs presize neurovascular software simulation

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Abstracts
3.1 OTHER – Innovation
P122/250  Man Vs machine: high variability in physician estimations of flow diverting stent deployment vs presize neurovascular software simulation
Free
  1. Ansaar Rai1,
  2. Soyun Boo1,
  3. Jonny Downer2,
  4. Johann Du Plessis3,
  5. Riitta Rautio4,
  6. Matias Sinisalo4,
  7. Johanna Pekkola4,
  8. Vinicius Carraro Do Nascimento5,
  9. Curtis Given6,
  10. Tufail Patankar7
  1. 1Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, Neuroradiology, Morgantown, USA
  2. 2 Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  3. 3 Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Edinburgh, UK
  4. 4Turku University Hospital, Department of Radiology, Turku, Finland
  5. 5Gold Coast University Hospital, Interventional Neuroradiology, Southport, Australia
  6. 6Baptist Health, Lexington, USA
  7. 7Leeds Teaching Hospital, Neuroradiology, Leeds, UK

Abstract

Introduction Clinician variability in preoperative planning of endovascular implant deployment and associated inaccuracies have not been yet documented.

Aim of Study This study aims to quantify the accuracy of clinician 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 preoperative 3D-RA volumetric data along with images annotated with the distal landing location of a deployed Surpass Evolve (Stryker Neurovascular) FD from 51 retrospective 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 labelled dimensions of the FD used. Deployed length estimation was also performed using PreSize software for the same cases. NI and software estimated lengths were compared to post-procedural observed deployed stent length (control) with Bland-Altman plots. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for NI agreement assessment.

Results Mean NI accuracy of estimated deployed FD length was 81%(±15) versus PreSize’s accuracy of 95%(±4). Software demonstrated significantly higher accuracy (p<.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 accuracy trends among NIs or across vasculature and aneurysm morphology (size, vessel diameter, tortuosity) were found.

Conclusion The study quantified experienced clinicians’ significant variability in predicting an FD deployment with current planning approaches. Comparatively, PreSize simulated FD deployment was consistently more accurate and reliable, demonstrating its potential to improve standard-of-practice.

Disclosure of Interest AR, SB: Consulting agreement Stryker, Cerenovus, Microvention

J Dower: PI for Oxford Heartbeat Multicentre Prospective Oxford Heartbeat PreSize study. Consulting agreement Stryker, Phenox, Microvention, Oxford Endovascular

VN, CG: Consulting agreement Stryker and Medtronic

RR: Consulting agreement Stryker, Balt, Medtronic, Microvention, Acandis

JP, TP, MS, J DuPlessis: No disclosures

https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2023-ESMINT.151

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.