Pediatric radiology · 2010
Multidetector CT venography and contrast-enhanced MR venography of the inferior mesenteric vein in paediatric extrahepatic portal vein obstruction.
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.
Chennur Vikash Srinivasaiah Setty, Sharma Raju, Gamanagatti Shivanand, Bhatnagar Veereshwar, Gupta Arun Kumar, Vishnubhatla Sreenivas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Extrahepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO) is a common cause of paediatric portal hypertension and the only permanent treatment is shunt surgery. The inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) is a portal venous channel that can be used for the shunt when the splenic vein/superior mesenteric vein is thrombosed or when a lienorenal shunt is not possible.
OBJECTIVE: To compare MDCT venography (MDCTV) and contrast-enhanced MR venography (CEMRV) for visualisation of the IMV in children with EHPVO.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study of 26 children (4-12 years, median 10 years) who underwent MDCTV and CEMRV. The IMV visualisation was graded using 4- and 2-point scales and the difference in visualisation was assessed by calculating the exact significance probability (P).
RESULTS: The IMV was visualised in all children on MDCTV and 25/26 children on CEMRV (96%). The images were diagnostic in 23/26 children (88%) on MDCTV and in 18/26 (69%) children on CEMRV (P=0.063).
CONCLUSION: MDCTV and CEMRV are comparable for IMV visualisation with a tendency toward MDCTV being superior.
OBJECTIVE: To compare MDCT venography (MDCTV) and contrast-enhanced MR venography (CEMRV) for visualisation of the IMV in children with EHPVO.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study of 26 children (4-12 years, median 10 years) who underwent MDCTV and CEMRV. The IMV visualisation was graded using 4- and 2-point scales and the difference in visualisation was assessed by calculating the exact significance probability (P).
RESULTS: The IMV was visualised in all children on MDCTV and 25/26 children on CEMRV (96%). The images were diagnostic in 23/26 children (88%) on MDCTV and in 18/26 (69%) children on CEMRV (P=0.063).
CONCLUSION: MDCTV and CEMRV are comparable for IMV visualisation with a tendency toward MDCTV being superior.