Changes in Apposition of Endograft Limbs in the Iliac Arteries After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Determination With New Computed Tomography–Applied Software

Purpose: To validate new computed tomography (CT)–applied software used to determine endograft limb position and apposition after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Materials and Methods: Twelve EVAR patients (mean age 81±6 years; 10 men) with distal stent-graft extensions for 15 (3 bilateral) type Ib endoleaks during follow-up were selected based on the availability of the following CT studies: pre-EVAR, 1 month, and the penultimate scan prior to the scan disclosing the type Ib endoleak. Twelve patients (mean age 82±7 years; 11 men) without endoleak and a similar interval between the primary EVAR procedure and the penultimate CT scan of the endoleak group were selected as controls using measurements from both endograft limbs (n=21, 3 excluded). Prototype Vascular Imaging Analysis software was adapted to calculate 6 parameters for the distal apposition zone: fabric distance, shortest apposition length, endograft diameter, iliac seal surface (ISS), iliac endograft apposition surface (IEAS), and percentage of iliac surface coverage (IEAS/ISS × 100). Measurements were performed on the preoperative, first postoperative, and penultimate/matched follow-up CT scans. Interobserver variability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Continuous data are presented as the median [interquartile range (IQR) Q1, Q3]. Results: CTA follow-up was not significantly different between the endoleak and control groups [30 months (IQR 18, 58) vs 36 months (IQR 21, 59), p=0.843]. Interobserver agreement was good to excellent for all parameters (ICC 0.879–0.985). Preoperative anatomy and endograft dimensions on the first follow-up CTA scan did not differ significantly between the groups. When the penultimate CTA scan was compared with the first postoperative CT scan, endograft dimensions had significantly changed in the endoleak group; importantly, apposition was significantly decreased, and fabric distance was significantly increased, indicating limb retraction. Differences in changes in endograft dimensions were significant between the groups. Conclusion: New CT-applied software was introduced to visualize apposition and position changes of endograft limbs during follow-up. The software demonstrated good-to-excellent interobserver agreement and enabled accurate analysis of post-EVAR endograft dimensions. Significant changes in apposition and position were observed with the software on the penultimate CT scan prior to diagnosis of type Ib endoleak.