Cargando…

Computer-based comparison of different methods for selecting mitral annuloplasty ring size

BACKGROUND: Ring sizing for mitral valve annuloplasty is conventionally done intraoperatively using specific ‘sizer’ instruments, which are placed onto the valve tissue. This approach is barely reproducible since different sizing strategies have been established among surgeons. The goal of this stud...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Al-Maisary, Sameer, Engelhardt, Sandy, Graser, Bastian, Wolf, Ivo, Karck, Matthias, De Simone, Raffaele
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5282721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28137288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13019-017-0571-y
_version_ 1782503379180716032
author Al-Maisary, Sameer
Engelhardt, Sandy
Graser, Bastian
Wolf, Ivo
Karck, Matthias
De Simone, Raffaele
author_facet Al-Maisary, Sameer
Engelhardt, Sandy
Graser, Bastian
Wolf, Ivo
Karck, Matthias
De Simone, Raffaele
author_sort Al-Maisary, Sameer
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Ring sizing for mitral valve annuloplasty is conventionally done intraoperatively using specific ‘sizer’ instruments, which are placed onto the valve tissue. This approach is barely reproducible since different sizing strategies have been established among surgeons. The goal of this study is to virtually apply different sizing methods on the basis of pre-repair echocardiography to find out basic differences between sizing strategies. METHODS: In three-dimensional echocardiographs of 43 patients, the mitral annulus and the contour of the anterior mitral leaflet were segmented using MITK Mitralyzer software. Similarly, three-dimensional virtual models of Carpentier-Edwards Physio II annuloplasty rings and their corresponding sizers were interactively generated from computer tomography images. For each patient, the matching annuloplasty ring was selected repeatedly according to popular sizing strategies, such as the height of anterior mitral leaflet, the intercommissural distance and the surface area of anterior mitral leaflet. The areas of the selected rings were considered as the neo-surface area of the mitral annulus after implantation. RESULTS: The sizing of the mitral valve according to the height of anterior mitral leaflet (mean ring size = 29.9 ± 3.90), intercommissural distance (mean ring size = 37.5 ± 1.92) or surface area of anterior mitral leaflet (mean ring size = 32.7 ± 3.3) led to significantly different measurements (p ≤ 0.01). In contrary to intercommissural distance, height and surface area of the anterior mitral leaflet exhibited significant variations between the patients (p ≤ 0.01). The sizing according to the height of anterior mitral leaflet led to the maximal reduction of the mitral annulus surface area followed by the sizing according to the surface area of anterior mitral leaflet and finally by the intercommissural distance. CONCLUSIONS: This novel comprehensive computer-based analysis reveals that the surveyed sizing methods led to the selection of significantly different annuloplasty rings and therefore underscore the ambiguity of routinely applied annuloplasty sizing strategies. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13019-017-0571-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5282721
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52827212017-02-03 Computer-based comparison of different methods for selecting mitral annuloplasty ring size Al-Maisary, Sameer Engelhardt, Sandy Graser, Bastian Wolf, Ivo Karck, Matthias De Simone, Raffaele J Cardiothorac Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Ring sizing for mitral valve annuloplasty is conventionally done intraoperatively using specific ‘sizer’ instruments, which are placed onto the valve tissue. This approach is barely reproducible since different sizing strategies have been established among surgeons. The goal of this study is to virtually apply different sizing methods on the basis of pre-repair echocardiography to find out basic differences between sizing strategies. METHODS: In three-dimensional echocardiographs of 43 patients, the mitral annulus and the contour of the anterior mitral leaflet were segmented using MITK Mitralyzer software. Similarly, three-dimensional virtual models of Carpentier-Edwards Physio II annuloplasty rings and their corresponding sizers were interactively generated from computer tomography images. For each patient, the matching annuloplasty ring was selected repeatedly according to popular sizing strategies, such as the height of anterior mitral leaflet, the intercommissural distance and the surface area of anterior mitral leaflet. The areas of the selected rings were considered as the neo-surface area of the mitral annulus after implantation. RESULTS: The sizing of the mitral valve according to the height of anterior mitral leaflet (mean ring size = 29.9 ± 3.90), intercommissural distance (mean ring size = 37.5 ± 1.92) or surface area of anterior mitral leaflet (mean ring size = 32.7 ± 3.3) led to significantly different measurements (p ≤ 0.01). In contrary to intercommissural distance, height and surface area of the anterior mitral leaflet exhibited significant variations between the patients (p ≤ 0.01). The sizing according to the height of anterior mitral leaflet led to the maximal reduction of the mitral annulus surface area followed by the sizing according to the surface area of anterior mitral leaflet and finally by the intercommissural distance. CONCLUSIONS: This novel comprehensive computer-based analysis reveals that the surveyed sizing methods led to the selection of significantly different annuloplasty rings and therefore underscore the ambiguity of routinely applied annuloplasty sizing strategies. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13019-017-0571-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-01-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5282721/ /pubmed/28137288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13019-017-0571-y Text en © The Author(s). 2017 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 Research Article
Al-Maisary, Sameer
Engelhardt, Sandy
Graser, Bastian
Wolf, Ivo
Karck, Matthias
De Simone, Raffaele
Computer-based comparison of different methods for selecting mitral annuloplasty ring size
title Computer-based comparison of different methods for selecting mitral annuloplasty ring size
title_full Computer-based comparison of different methods for selecting mitral annuloplasty ring size
title_fullStr Computer-based comparison of different methods for selecting mitral annuloplasty ring size
title_full_unstemmed Computer-based comparison of different methods for selecting mitral annuloplasty ring size
title_short Computer-based comparison of different methods for selecting mitral annuloplasty ring size
title_sort computer-based comparison of different methods for selecting mitral annuloplasty ring size
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5282721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28137288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13019-017-0571-y
work_keys_str_mv AT almaisarysameer computerbasedcomparisonofdifferentmethodsforselectingmitralannuloplastyringsize
AT engelhardtsandy computerbasedcomparisonofdifferentmethodsforselectingmitralannuloplastyringsize
AT graserbastian computerbasedcomparisonofdifferentmethodsforselectingmitralannuloplastyringsize
AT wolfivo computerbasedcomparisonofdifferentmethodsforselectingmitralannuloplastyringsize
AT karckmatthias computerbasedcomparisonofdifferentmethodsforselectingmitralannuloplastyringsize
AT desimoneraffaele computerbasedcomparisonofdifferentmethodsforselectingmitralannuloplastyringsize