Application of multi-planar reconstruction technique in endovascular repair of aortic dissection

Table 1 Comparison of detection rate of dissection crevasse in each group

Groups	MPR group	VR group	MIP group	χ2	P value
Number of aortic rupture cases1	40	24	0	-	-
Proportion (%)1	72.73	52.17	0	60.994	0.000

¹Data presented in frequency and percentage.

MPR: Multi-planar reconstruction; VR: Volume reconstruction; MIP: Maximum intensity projection.

Table 2 Comparison of detection rate of DeBakey typing in each group

Groups	MPR group (n = 55; 36%)	VR group (n = 46; 30%)	MIP group (n = 52; 34%)	χ2	P value
Type Ⅰ1	19/20	14/16	0/17	41.509	0.000
Type Ⅱ1	4/11	3/10	0/13	7.937	0.019
Type Ⅲ1	23/24	13/20	0/22	43.783	0.000

¹Data presented in frequency and percentage.

MPR: Multi-planar reconstruction; VR: Volume reconstruction; MIP: Maximum intensity projection.

Table 3 Comparison of C-arm rotation and tilt angle in each group

Groups	MPR group (n = 55; 36%)	VR group (n = 46; 30%)	MIP group (n = 52; 34%)	F	P value
Rotation angle (°)1	57.26 ± 6.18	52.72 ± 5.09	49.30 ± 3.15	34.197	0.000
Tilt angle (°)1	-2.09 ± 7.18	-0.16 ± 0.93	-0.13 ± 0.87	3.495	0.033

¹Data presented in mean ± SD.

MPR: Multi-planar reconstruction; VR: Volume reconstruction; MIP: Maximum intensity projection.

Table 4 Comparison of marker point dispersion rate and complication rate in each group, n (%)

Groups		MPR group (n = 55; 36%)	VR group (n = 46; 30%)	MIP group (n = 52; 34%)	χ2	P value
Marker point dispersion rate		2 (3.64)	8 (17.39)	14 (26.92)	11.104	0.004
Complication	Stent displacement	1 (1.82)	1 (2.17)	3 (5.77)	-	-
	Internal leakage	1 (1.82)	2 (4.35)	5 (9.62)
	Artery dilatation	0	1 (2.17)	2 (3.85)
	Aortic rupture	0	0	1 (1.92)
	Overall complications	2 (3.64)	4 (8.70)	11 (21.15)	8.693	0.013

MPR: Multi-planar reconstruction; VR: Volume reconstruction; MIP: Maximum intensity projection.