AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2010
Added value of high-resolution MR imaging in the diagnosis of vertebral artery dissection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Naggara O, Louillet F, Touzé E, Roy D, Leclerc X, Mas J-L, Pruvo J-P, Meder J-F, Oppenheim C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The optimal imaging method for the diagnosis of VAD remains undefined. Our aim was to evaluate the added value of HR-MR imaging for the diagnosis of VAD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively extracted 35 consecutive patients suspected of having acute VAD who had the following: 1) a focal lumen abnormality of the VA on CE-MRA, 2) HR-MR imaging during the initial hospital stay, and 3) clinical and imaging follow-up within 6 months. Two neurologists classified patients as either VAD (group A) or non-VAD (group B) by reviewing all the available data at hospital discharge, except HR-MR imaging data. On HR-MR imaging, 2 radiologists searched for signs of acute VAD. The 2 classifications were compared. In case of discordance, CE-MRA follow-up and axial fat-suppressed T1WI, used to obtain supportive evidence for or against VAD, were considered as the standard of reference.
RESULTS: In 4/18 patients in group A, HR-MR imaging did not demonstrate any signs of acute VAD and perivertebral signal-intensity changes were attributed to venous plexus, with an unchanged lumen on follow-up. In 4/17 patients in group B, HR-MRI demonstrated a mural hematoma, with lumen normalization on follow-up CE-MRA.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results encourage the use of HR-MR imaging as a second-line diagnostic tool in the event of suspicion of acute VAD and doubtful findings on standard imaging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively extracted 35 consecutive patients suspected of having acute VAD who had the following: 1) a focal lumen abnormality of the VA on CE-MRA, 2) HR-MR imaging during the initial hospital stay, and 3) clinical and imaging follow-up within 6 months. Two neurologists classified patients as either VAD (group A) or non-VAD (group B) by reviewing all the available data at hospital discharge, except HR-MR imaging data. On HR-MR imaging, 2 radiologists searched for signs of acute VAD. The 2 classifications were compared. In case of discordance, CE-MRA follow-up and axial fat-suppressed T1WI, used to obtain supportive evidence for or against VAD, were considered as the standard of reference.
RESULTS: In 4/18 patients in group A, HR-MR imaging did not demonstrate any signs of acute VAD and perivertebral signal-intensity changes were attributed to venous plexus, with an unchanged lumen on follow-up. In 4/17 patients in group B, HR-MRI demonstrated a mural hematoma, with lumen normalization on follow-up CE-MRA.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results encourage the use of HR-MR imaging as a second-line diagnostic tool in the event of suspicion of acute VAD and doubtful findings on standard imaging.