This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Norman R. Hertzer, MD; Edwin G. Beven, MD

JAMA. 1978;240(18):1966-1968.

Abstract
In a study of 53 cases, aneurysm size was measured with the use of preoperative physical examination, lateral abdominal roentgenography, and B-mode aortic ultrasonography for comparison with direct intraoperative measurement during aneurysmectomy. Mean aneurysm diameter on the basis of physical examination overestimated aortic size by 1 cm; physical examination measurement was within 0.5 cm of true aortic size in 38% of patients and within 1 cm in 58% of patients. The lateral roentgenogram also overestimated mean aortic diameter by 1 cm and was within 0.5 cm of true aortic size in 44% of patients and within 1 cm in 72% of patients. Measurement using B-mode aortic ultrasonography closely approximated intraoperative aneurysm measurement. Measurement was identical in 34% of patients and was within 0.5 cm and 1 cm in 75% and 92% of patients, respectively.

(JAMA 240:1966-1968, 1978)

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Vascular Surgery, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland,

Footnotes
Reprint requests to the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44106 (Dr Hertzer).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Does This Patient Have Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm?
Lederle and Simel
JAMA 1999;281:77-82.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT