Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIG 1.
Flow chart of the patient enrollment process and workflow of this study. Asterisk indicates accurate localization of critical lesions which defined as mostly correct when multiple feeding arteries are present, and the identification of drainage veins covering over 70% of the range.
- FIG 2.
Percentage of stacked bar chart of categorization of postprocessing SSBBF reconstruction accuracy. Types 3 and 4 are considered particularly beneficial in aiding clinical diagnosis and treatment.
- FIG 3.
Spinal CTA images in a 28-year-old man with a spinal AVM. The crucial lesions, including nidus (arrowhead), feeding artery (solid arrow), and drainage vein (dotted arrow), are shown in MPR-CTA (A), RBS-CTA (B), SSBBF-CTA (C), and DSA images (D).
- FIG 4.
Spinal CTA images in a 55-year-old woman with a spinal AVF. The crucial lesions, including the fistula (arrowhead), feeding artery (solid arrow), and drainage vein (dotted arrow), are shown in an MPR-CTA image (A), a RBS-CTA image (B), SSBBF-CTA image (C), and a DSA image (D).
Tables
Group A Group B P Value Age (yr)b 44.0 (SD, 14.3) 44.6 (SD, 15.2) .898 Sexc .990 Female 9 11 Male 13 16 Sensory disturbance 100% (22/22) 88.9% (24/27) .242 Motor disturbance 90.9% (20/22) 77.8% (21/27) .269 Reflex abnormality 68.2% (15/22) 66.7% (18/27) .910 Urogenital disturbance 72.7% (16/22) 33.3% (9/27) .005d Back pain 9.1% (2/22) 11.1% (3/27) 1.000 - Table 2:
Diagnostic efficacy of original images with MPR for primary screening of SVMs by different readersa
Reader Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Accuracy (%) PPV (%) NPV (%) AUC [95% CI] Youden Reader 1b 77.3 (17/22) 92.6 (25/27) 85.7 (42/49) 89.5 (17/19) 83.3 (25/30) 0.849 (0.718–0.935) 0.699 Reader 2 90.9 (20/22) 96.3 (26/27) 93.9 (46/49) 95.2 (20/21) 92.9 (26/28) 0.936 (0.828–0.986) 0.872 Reader 3 95.5 (21/22) 100 (27/27) 98.0 (48/49) 100 (21/21) 96.4 (27/28) 0.977 (0.888–0.999) 0.955 Note:—PPV indicates positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; Reader 1, a radiologist with one year of experience; Reader 2, a junior physician who submitted the original report for the first time;Reader 3, a reviewing physician who also submitted the original report for the first time.
↵a Data in brackets are 95% CIs, and data in parentheses are numbers of patients.
↵b Readers 1 and 3 showed statistically significant differences (P < .05).
- Table 3:
Scoring of lesion localization and visualization of SVMs using different postprocessing techniques of CTA imagesa
MPR-CTA RBS-CTAb SSBBF-CTA P Valuec Visualization of lesions (total points) 6.00 (1.00) 4.00 (2.75) 6.00 (0.63) .000 Nidus/fistula 2.00 (0.00) 1.50 (1.00) 2.00 (1.25) .000 Feeding artery 2.00 (0.63) 1.00 (1.50) 2.00 (0.00) .000 Drainage vein 2.00 (0.00) 1.00 (1.00) 2.00 (0.00) .000 Localization of lesions (total points) 6.00 (0.00) 3.25 (3.00) 6.00 (1.00) .000 Nidus/fistula 2.00 (0.00) 1.00 (1.00) 2.00 (0.00) .000 Feeding artery 2.00 (0.00) 1.00 (2.00) 2.00 (0.00) .000 Drainage vein 2.00 (0.00) 1.00 (1.13) 2.00 (0.00) .00 Overall morphology 4.00 (0.00) 2.75 (2.63) 4.00 (0.50) .000 ↵a The data are presented as median (interquartile range).
b There is a statistically significant difference between RBS-CTA and the other 2 groups (P < .05).
c There is a significant statistical difference among the 3 groups (P < .05).
- Table 4:
Assessment of lesions of SVMs and diagnostic time using different postprocessing CTA techniques by different readersa
Reader 1 Reader 4 P Value MPR-CTA Visualization of lesions 4.00 (1.25) 6.00 (1.00) .001b Localization of lesions 4.50 (2.00) 6.00 (0.00) .003b Overall morphology 4.00 (1.00) 4.00 (0.00) .025b Diagnostic time 9.00 (6.75) 7.00 (3.00) .017b RBS-CTA Visualization of lesions 3.50 (3.00) 3.50 (3.00) .353 Localization of lesions 2.25 (3.00) 3.00 (2.50) .178 Overall morphology 2.50 (1.25) 3.00 (2.00) .070 Diagnostic time NA NA NA SSBBF-CTA Visualization of lesions 6.00 (1.00) 6.00 (1.00) .705 Localization of lesions 6.00 (1.00) 6.00 (1.00) .206 Overall morphology 4.00 (0.25) 4.00 (0.13) .655 Diagnostic time 3.00 (2.00)c 3.00 (1.25)c .943 Note:—NA indicates not applicable; Reader 1, a radiologist with one year of experience; Reader 4, a radiologist with 4 years of experience.
a The data are presented as median (interquartile range). The visualization and localization of lesions represent the total score of the nidus/fistula, feeding artery, and drainage vein.
↵b There is a significant statistical difference between readers 1 and 4 (P < .05).
↵c There is a statistically significant difference in diagnostic time between the use of MPR-CTA and SSBBF-CTA (P = .000).
