MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1177/1051228404272886

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging · 2005

Magnetic resonance imaging protocols for cervical disc disease: what is your neighbor up to?

Wolansky Leo J, Parikh Dipti D, Shah Kartik J, Yalamanchili Raj, Farkas Jeffery

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To summarize the prevalence of particular protocols used for routine magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine.

METHODS

Centers nationwide were asked to submit routine protocols for degenerative disease. Cases with a history of demyelinating disease or suspected cord lesions were excluded. The pulse sequences and scanning planes were tabulated for 105 centers. For the last 53 centers studied, axial gradient recalled echo sequences were subdivided into 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional Fourier transform.

RESULTS

There were 21 different combinations. A protocol consisting of sagittal T1+sagittal T2+axial gradient recalled echo T2 was used by 48% of centers. Two sagittal and 2 axial series in any combination was used in 30% (32/105 centers). One center used gradient recalled echo images exclusively, consisting of T1, proton density, and T2-weighted images, which included axial and sagittal planes.

CONCLUSION

Sagittal T1+sagittal T2+axial gradient recalled echo T2 is by far the most prevalent protocol used for imaging the cervical spine.

Для цитирования: Wolansky Leo J, Parikh Dipti D, Shah Kartik J, Yalamanchili Raj, Farkas Jeffery. Magnetic resonance imaging protocols for cervical disc disease: what is your neighbor up to?. Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging. 2005. DOI: 10.1177/1051228404272886.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.