Pros and Cons of 3D Image Fusion in Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Seline R. Goudeketting*, Stefan G. H. Heinen, Cagdas Unlu, Daniel A. F. van den Heuvel, Jean-Paul P. M. de Vries, Marco J. van Strijen, Anna M. Sailer

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)595-603
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Endovascular Therapy
Volume24
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2017

Keywords

  • 3D imaging
  • computed tomography angiography
  • cone-beam computed tomography
  • contrast media
  • endovascular aneurysm repair
  • fluoroscopy
  • fusion imaging
  • meta-analysis
  • radiation dose
  • systematic review
  • thoracic endovascular aortic repair
  • ANEURYSM REPAIR
  • RADIATION-EXPOSURE
  • INDUCED NEPHROPATHY
  • CONTRAST AGENT
  • MR-ANGIOGRAPHY
  • TECHNICAL NOTE
  • HYBRID ROOMS
  • FEASIBILITY
  • GUIDANCE
  • FLUOROSCOPY

Cite this

Goudeketting, S. R., Heinen, S. G. H., Unlu, C., van den Heuvel, D. A. F., de Vries, J-P. P. M., van Strijen, M. J., & Sailer, A. M. (2017). Pros and Cons of 3D Image Fusion in Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Endovascular Therapy, 24(4), 595-603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1526602817708196