Radiation medicine · 2004
Utility of cine MR urography of the urinary tract and comparison with static MR urography.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Tsubota Masako, Takahara Taro, Nitatori Toshiaki, Hachiya Junichi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: MR urography using heavily T2-weighted images can depict the urinary tract without the need for contrast medium. However, this technique has potential problems with regard to evaluating the non-dilated ureter. We compared the efficacy of cine MR urography (C-MRU) with static MR urography (S-MRU).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients with suspected upper urinary tract disease underwent C-MRU. The final clinical diagnosis was compared with the diagnosis made using S-MRU and C-MRU, respectively. The sequence used was single-shot fast spin echo with a slice thickness of 50 mm, FOV of 45 cm, and 256x256 matrix. MR urography was obtained sequentially by 6 to 10 repetitions of single-shot scans with intermittent breath holding. S-MRU was used in the initial phase of this sequence, while C-MRU was used for the entire sequence. A final diagnosis was made based on 1) existence of stenosis, 2) rate of certainty of existence of stenosis, 3) etiology of stenosis.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed between S-MRU and C-MRU, except in certainty of existence of stenosis, where C-MRU (average rate: 2.82 +/- 0.39) was significantly superior to S-MRU (2.41 +/- 0.73).
CONCLUSION: C-MRU can improve the certainty of existence of urinary stenosis, and may be useful in excluding suspected stenoses in normal or undilated ureters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients with suspected upper urinary tract disease underwent C-MRU. The final clinical diagnosis was compared with the diagnosis made using S-MRU and C-MRU, respectively. The sequence used was single-shot fast spin echo with a slice thickness of 50 mm, FOV of 45 cm, and 256x256 matrix. MR urography was obtained sequentially by 6 to 10 repetitions of single-shot scans with intermittent breath holding. S-MRU was used in the initial phase of this sequence, while C-MRU was used for the entire sequence. A final diagnosis was made based on 1) existence of stenosis, 2) rate of certainty of existence of stenosis, 3) etiology of stenosis.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed between S-MRU and C-MRU, except in certainty of existence of stenosis, where C-MRU (average rate: 2.82 +/- 0.39) was significantly superior to S-MRU (2.41 +/- 0.73).
CONCLUSION: C-MRU can improve the certainty of existence of urinary stenosis, and may be useful in excluding suspected stenoses in normal or undilated ureters.