1. Cavographic vs. cross-sectional measurement of the inferior vena cava diameter before filter placement: are we routinely oversizing?
- Author
-
Zishu Zhang, Yu-Dong Xiao, and Cong Ma
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Vena Cava Filters ,Vena cava ,Adolescent ,Ivc filter ,Computed tomography ,Vena Cava, Inferior ,Inferior vena cava ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,03 medical and health sciences ,Young Adult ,0302 clinical medicine ,Medicine ,Humans ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Aged ,Retrospective Studies ,Aged, 80 and over ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,Ultrasound ,General Medicine ,Equipment Design ,Middle Aged ,Circumference ,Vertical long axis ,medicine.vein ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Horizontal Long Axis ,Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted ,Female ,Radiology ,business ,Tomography, X-Ray Computed - Abstract
A megacava (vena cava with a diameter of 28 mm or greater) requires a particular filter to avoid migration. However, caval morphologies are variable. As the inferior vena cava (IVC) usually adopts a circular geometry after a filter is inserted, this study aims (a) to classify caval geometry and orientation; (b) to compare discrepancy between anterioposterior projective diameter (PD) and circumference-based calculated diameter (CD) measurements on cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) images; (c) if a discrepancy exists, determine how often it can affect IVC filter selection. A total of 1503 patients were retrospectively reviewed. Caval morphology was classified. PD and CD were measured at infrarenal IVC. Differences between the PD and CD were assessed by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired t test (if appropriate). The scatterplot of PD vs. CD was used to show whether one is consistently larger than the other. The PD was significantly larger than the CD (22.3 ± 3.5 vs. 20.4 ± 2.8, p
- Published
- 2018