Cargando…

Comparison of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography angiography and splenoportography for the evaluation of portosystemic-shunt occlusion after cellophane banding in dogs

BACKGROUND: Many patients with a congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunt (PSS) do not tolerate an immediate shunt closure. Therefore, slow progressive techniques were developed. To evaluate the success of shunt closure diagnostic imaging is essential to identify possible residual blood flow thro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schaub, Sebastian, Hartmann, Antje, Schwarz, Tobias, Kemper, Karsten, Pueckler, Kerstin H., Schneider, Matthias A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5148836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27938359
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0910-6
_version_ 1782473891205087232
author Schaub, Sebastian
Hartmann, Antje
Schwarz, Tobias
Kemper, Karsten
Pueckler, Kerstin H.
Schneider, Matthias A.
author_facet Schaub, Sebastian
Hartmann, Antje
Schwarz, Tobias
Kemper, Karsten
Pueckler, Kerstin H.
Schneider, Matthias A.
author_sort Schaub, Sebastian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Many patients with a congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunt (PSS) do not tolerate an immediate shunt closure. Therefore, slow progressive techniques were developed. To evaluate the success of shunt closure diagnostic imaging is essential to identify possible residual blood flow through the shunt vessel. There is a lack of information about the reliability of computed tomography angiography (CTA) for evaluating residual flow through a PSS after treatment. The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the results of CTA with splenoportography. Three months after cellophane banding CTA and splenoportography were performed in 20 dogs and reviewed by three independent examiners, respectively. In both imaging modalities the presences of a residual shunt was judged as present or absent and the extent of visibility of portal vasculature was recorded. RESULTS: Based on the evaluation of the splenoportography residual flow through shunt was present in 6 dogs. The classification of residual shunt present or absent showed a substantial to perfect agreement (κ = 0.65–1.00) between the observers in splenoportography and a slight to moderate agreement (κ = 0.11–0.51) for CTA. Sensitivity and specificity varied between 0.50 and 1.00 and 0.57–0.85, respectively. Significant correlation between CTA and splenoportography for the classification of residual shunt was present only in one observer but not in the other two. CONCLUSION: More studies were classified as residual shunt positive with CTA compared to splenoportography. It remains unclear which methods do reflect reality better and thus which method is superior. The greater inter-rater agreement for splenoportography suggests a greater reliability of this technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5148836
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51488362016-12-15 Comparison of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography angiography and splenoportography for the evaluation of portosystemic-shunt occlusion after cellophane banding in dogs Schaub, Sebastian Hartmann, Antje Schwarz, Tobias Kemper, Karsten Pueckler, Kerstin H. Schneider, Matthias A. BMC Vet Res Methodology Article BACKGROUND: Many patients with a congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunt (PSS) do not tolerate an immediate shunt closure. Therefore, slow progressive techniques were developed. To evaluate the success of shunt closure diagnostic imaging is essential to identify possible residual blood flow through the shunt vessel. There is a lack of information about the reliability of computed tomography angiography (CTA) for evaluating residual flow through a PSS after treatment. The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the results of CTA with splenoportography. Three months after cellophane banding CTA and splenoportography were performed in 20 dogs and reviewed by three independent examiners, respectively. In both imaging modalities the presences of a residual shunt was judged as present or absent and the extent of visibility of portal vasculature was recorded. RESULTS: Based on the evaluation of the splenoportography residual flow through shunt was present in 6 dogs. The classification of residual shunt present or absent showed a substantial to perfect agreement (κ = 0.65–1.00) between the observers in splenoportography and a slight to moderate agreement (κ = 0.11–0.51) for CTA. Sensitivity and specificity varied between 0.50 and 1.00 and 0.57–0.85, respectively. Significant correlation between CTA and splenoportography for the classification of residual shunt was present only in one observer but not in the other two. CONCLUSION: More studies were classified as residual shunt positive with CTA compared to splenoportography. It remains unclear which methods do reflect reality better and thus which method is superior. The greater inter-rater agreement for splenoportography suggests a greater reliability of this technique. BioMed Central 2016-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5148836/ /pubmed/27938359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0910-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Methodology Article
Schaub, Sebastian
Hartmann, Antje
Schwarz, Tobias
Kemper, Karsten
Pueckler, Kerstin H.
Schneider, Matthias A.
Comparison of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography angiography and splenoportography for the evaluation of portosystemic-shunt occlusion after cellophane banding in dogs
title Comparison of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography angiography and splenoportography for the evaluation of portosystemic-shunt occlusion after cellophane banding in dogs
title_full Comparison of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography angiography and splenoportography for the evaluation of portosystemic-shunt occlusion after cellophane banding in dogs
title_fullStr Comparison of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography angiography and splenoportography for the evaluation of portosystemic-shunt occlusion after cellophane banding in dogs
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography angiography and splenoportography for the evaluation of portosystemic-shunt occlusion after cellophane banding in dogs
title_short Comparison of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography angiography and splenoportography for the evaluation of portosystemic-shunt occlusion after cellophane banding in dogs
title_sort comparison of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography angiography and splenoportography for the evaluation of portosystemic-shunt occlusion after cellophane banding in dogs
topic Methodology Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5148836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27938359
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0910-6
work_keys_str_mv AT schaubsebastian comparisonofcontrastenhancedmultidetectorcomputedtomographyangiographyandsplenoportographyfortheevaluationofportosystemicshuntocclusionaftercellophanebandingindogs
AT hartmannantje comparisonofcontrastenhancedmultidetectorcomputedtomographyangiographyandsplenoportographyfortheevaluationofportosystemicshuntocclusionaftercellophanebandingindogs
AT schwarztobias comparisonofcontrastenhancedmultidetectorcomputedtomographyangiographyandsplenoportographyfortheevaluationofportosystemicshuntocclusionaftercellophanebandingindogs
AT kemperkarsten comparisonofcontrastenhancedmultidetectorcomputedtomographyangiographyandsplenoportographyfortheevaluationofportosystemicshuntocclusionaftercellophanebandingindogs
AT puecklerkerstinh comparisonofcontrastenhancedmultidetectorcomputedtomographyangiographyandsplenoportographyfortheevaluationofportosystemicshuntocclusionaftercellophanebandingindogs
AT schneidermatthiasa comparisonofcontrastenhancedmultidetectorcomputedtomographyangiographyandsplenoportographyfortheevaluationofportosystemicshuntocclusionaftercellophanebandingindogs