RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin · 1997
[MR myelography in spinal canal stenosis].
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Freund M, Hutzelmann A, Steffens J C, Buhl R, Heller M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the clinical value of 3D-MR-myelography (3D-MRM) in comparison to myelography and intra-operative findings.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 25 patients with suspected lumbar spinal canal stenosis were studied via myelography and 3D-MRM (volume-data set, 3D-FISP sequence, TR 73 ms, TE 21 ms, flip angle 7 degrees, sagittal slices) besides the routinely acquired sagittal and axial T1- and T2-weighted images. Diagnoses were made by two radiologists and one neurosurgeon without knowing the clinical history and symptoms, in two separate sessions. Results were compared to intraoperative findings.
RESULTS: 3D-MRM has the same diagnostic sensitivity (25/25 = 100%) as conventional X-ray myelography (25/25 = 100%) compared to intraoperative findings, but is not invasive and shows more diagnostic details than myelography. Especially in cases of high-grade spinal canal stenosis there is often a lack of intrathecal contrast medium distally of the stenosis.
CONCLUSION: 3D-MRM is as good as conventional myelography in predicting intraoperative findings in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. This new method is non-invasive and can be performed routinely on an outpatient basis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 25 patients with suspected lumbar spinal canal stenosis were studied via myelography and 3D-MRM (volume-data set, 3D-FISP sequence, TR 73 ms, TE 21 ms, flip angle 7 degrees, sagittal slices) besides the routinely acquired sagittal and axial T1- and T2-weighted images. Diagnoses were made by two radiologists and one neurosurgeon without knowing the clinical history and symptoms, in two separate sessions. Results were compared to intraoperative findings.
RESULTS: 3D-MRM has the same diagnostic sensitivity (25/25 = 100%) as conventional X-ray myelography (25/25 = 100%) compared to intraoperative findings, but is not invasive and shows more diagnostic details than myelography. Especially in cases of high-grade spinal canal stenosis there is often a lack of intrathecal contrast medium distally of the stenosis.
CONCLUSION: 3D-MRM is as good as conventional myelography in predicting intraoperative findings in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. This new method is non-invasive and can be performed routinely on an outpatient basis.