CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 898–904 | Cite as

Arms Down Cone Beam CT Hepatic Angiography Performance Assessment: Vascular Imaging Quality and Imaging Artifacts

  • Adrian J. Gonzalez-Aguirre
  • Elena N. Petre
  • Meier Hsu
  • Chaya S. Moskowitz
  • Stephen B. Solomon
  • Jeremy C. Durack
Clinical Investigation



The practice of positioning patients’ arms above the head during catheter-injected hepatic arterial phase cone beam CT (A-CBCT) imaging has been inherited from standard CT imaging due to image quality concerns, but interrupts workflow and extends procedure time. We sought to assess A-CBCT image quality and artifacts with arms extended above the head versus down by the side.


We performed an IRB approved retrospective evaluation of reformatted and 3D-volume rendered images from 91 consecutive A-CBCTs (43 arms up, 48 arms down) acquired during hepatic tumor arterial embolization procedures. Two interventional radiologists reviewed all A-CBCT imaging and assigned vessel visualization scores (VVS) from 1 to 5, ranging from non-diagnostic to optimal visualization. Streak artifacts across axial images were rated from 1 to 3 based on resulting image quality (none to significant). Presence of respiratory or cardiac motion during acquisition, body mass index and radiation dose area product (DAP) were also recorded and analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess the impact of arm position on VVS and imaging artifacts.


VVS were not significantly associated with arm position during A-CBCT imaging. One reader reported more streak artifacts across axial images in the arms down group (p = 0.005). DAP was not statistically different between the groups (23.9 Gy cm2 [6.1–73.4] arms up, 26.1 Gy cm2 [4.2–102.6] arms down, p = 0.54).


A-CBCT angiography performed with the arms above the head is not superior for clinically relevant hepatic vascular visualization compared to imaging performed with the arms by the patient’s side.


Cone beam CT angiography Arms positioning Transcatheter hepatic embolization Vessel visualization Image quality 



This study was funded in part through the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Stephen B. Solomon holds a research grant from GE Healthcare and is a consultant to Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca. Other authors do not have conflict of interest to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH. Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: initial performance characterization. Med Phys. 2000;27:1311–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Linsenmaier U, Rock C, Euler E, et al. Three-dimensional CT with a modified C-arm image intensifier: feasibility. Radiology. 2002;224:286–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hirota S, Nakao N, Yamamoto S, et al. Cone-beam CT with flat-panel-detector digital angiography system: early experience in abdominal interventional procedures. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2006;29:1034–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wallace MJ, Murthy R, Kamat PP, et al. Impact of C-arm CT on hepatic arterial interventions for hepatic malignancies. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;18:1500–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deschamps F, Solomon SB, Thornton RH, et al. Computed analysis of three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography angiography for determination of tumor-feeding vessels during chemoembolization of liver tumor: a pilot study. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2010;33:1235–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miyayama S, Yamashiro M, Hashimoto M, et al. Comparison of local control in transcatheter arterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma ≤6 cm with or without intraprocedural monitoring of the embolized area using cone-beam computed tomography. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2014;37:388–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pillai AK, Ferral H, Desai S, Paruchuri S, Asselmeier S, Perez-Gautrin R. Brachial plexus injury related to patient positioning. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;18:833–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang J, Moore AE, Stringer MD. Iatrogenic upper limb nerve injuries: a systematic review. ANZ J Surg. 2011;81:227–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kahn J, Grupp U, Maurer M. How does arm positioning of polytraumatized patients in the initial computed tomography (CT) affect image quality and diagnostic accuracy? Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:e67–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mori I, Machida Y, Osanai M, Iinuma K. Photon starvation artifacts of X-ray CT: their true cause and a solution. Radiol Phys Technol. 2013;6:130–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics. 2004;24:1679–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kohlbrenner R, Kolli KP, Taylor AG, et al. Patient radiation dose reduction during transarterial chemoembolization using a novel X-ray imaging platform. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26:1331–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Measur. 1973;33:613–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miyayama S, Yamashiro M, Hashimoto M, et al. Identification of small hepatocellular carcinoma and tumor-feeding branches with cone-beam CT guidance technology during transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24:501–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang Z, Chen R, Duran R, et al. Intraprocedural 3D quantification of lipiodol deposition on cone-beam CT predicts tumor response after transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2015;38:1548–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee IJ, Chung JW, Yin YH, et al. Cone-beam CT hepatic arteriography in chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: angiographic image quality and its determining factors. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25:1369–79 (quiz 79-.e1).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Interventional Radiology ServiceMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations