“…From a clinical viewpoint, the choice, usage, benefit, and limitations of ceCBCT as an immediate 3D control of an interventional procedure is well documented in the literature, though mainly with regards to image quality, added clinical value, and additional patient contrast dose. 1,5,8,11,12,21 –23 A recent publication by Törnqvist et al 1 compares conventional angiography (CA), 3-phase MDCT, and ceCBCT with regard to the detection of endoleaks. They demonstrated that combining CA and CBCT provides the same relevant clinical information as follow-up MDCT examinations 1 month after intervention, making MDCT angiography “unnecessary in some patients.” As an alternative during or after EVAR, other modalities could be included, such as ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging.…”