Investigative radiology · 2001
Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography versus heavily T2-weighted magnetic resonance cholangiography.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Papanikolaou N, Prassopoulos P, Eracleous E, Maris T, Gogas C, Gourtsoyiannis N
Аннотация
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography (CE-MRC) and compare it with single-shot turbo spin-echo magnetic resonance cholangiography (SSTSE-MRC).
METHODS: Fifteen patients with suspected metastatic liver disease (n = 10) or biliary tree abnormalities (n = 5) underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (1.5-T system) examination before and after mangafodipir administration. Contrast-enhanced MRC with a three-dimensional fast low-angle shot sequence after mangafodipir trisodium administration was compared with SSTSE-MRC. Four anatomic segments were evaluated: the intrapancreatic and extrapancreatic common bile duct segments, the cystic duct, and the area of hepatic bifurcation. Contrast-enhanced MRC and SSTSE-MRC were separately analyzed on a 5-point grading scale in terms of ductal segment visualization and lumen narrowing or dilatation.
RESULTS: There was no difference (P = 0.375) in segment visualization between CE-MRC and SSTSE-MRC; 56 of the 60 segments were visualized by both techniques. In the evaluation of ductal narrowing or dilatation, nonsignificant differences (P = 0.500) were observed. Contrast-enhanced MRC was not influenced by fluid superimposition and provided additional information from background tissues.
CONCLUSIONS: Contract-enhanced MRC is a feasible technique showing anatomic correlation with SSTSE-MRC, and it can in addition provide functional information. Contrast-enhanced MRC may be used in selected patients when traditional SSTSE-MRC is inconclusive.
METHODS: Fifteen patients with suspected metastatic liver disease (n = 10) or biliary tree abnormalities (n = 5) underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (1.5-T system) examination before and after mangafodipir administration. Contrast-enhanced MRC with a three-dimensional fast low-angle shot sequence after mangafodipir trisodium administration was compared with SSTSE-MRC. Four anatomic segments were evaluated: the intrapancreatic and extrapancreatic common bile duct segments, the cystic duct, and the area of hepatic bifurcation. Contrast-enhanced MRC and SSTSE-MRC were separately analyzed on a 5-point grading scale in terms of ductal segment visualization and lumen narrowing or dilatation.
RESULTS: There was no difference (P = 0.375) in segment visualization between CE-MRC and SSTSE-MRC; 56 of the 60 segments were visualized by both techniques. In the evaluation of ductal narrowing or dilatation, nonsignificant differences (P = 0.500) were observed. Contrast-enhanced MRC was not influenced by fluid superimposition and provided additional information from background tissues.
CONCLUSIONS: Contract-enhanced MRC is a feasible technique showing anatomic correlation with SSTSE-MRC, and it can in addition provide functional information. Contrast-enhanced MRC may be used in selected patients when traditional SSTSE-MRC is inconclusive.