Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging · 2014
Threshold selection criteria for quantification of lumbosacral cerebrospinal fluid and root volumes from MRI.
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.
Puigdellívol-Sánchez Anna, Reina Miguel Angel, San-Molina Juan, Escobar José Manuel, Castedo Julio, Prats-Galino Alberto
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The high variability of CSF volumes partly explains the inconsistency of anesthetic effects, but may also be due to image analysis itself. In this study, criteria for threshold selection are anatomically defined.
METHODS: T2 MR images (n = 7 cases) were analyzed using 3-dimentional software. Maximal-minimal thresholds were selected in standardized blocks of 50 slices of the dural sac ending caudally at the L5-S1 intervertebral space (caudal blocks) and middle L3 (rostral blocks). Maximal CSF thresholds: threshold value was increased until at least one voxel in a CSF area appeared unlabeled and decreased until that voxel was labeled again: this final threshold was selected. Minimal root thresholds: thresholds values that selected cauda equina root area but not adjacent gray voxels in the CSF-root interface were chosen.
RESULTS: Significant differences were found between caudal and rostral thresholds. No significant differences were found between expert and nonexpert observers. Average max/min thresholds were around 1.30 but max/min CSF volumes were around 1.15. Great interindividual CSF volume variability was detected (max/min volumes 1.6-2.7).
CONCLUSIONS: The estimation of a close range of CSF volumes which probably contains the real CSF volume value can be standardized and calculated prior to certain intrathecal procedures.
METHODS: T2 MR images (n = 7 cases) were analyzed using 3-dimentional software. Maximal-minimal thresholds were selected in standardized blocks of 50 slices of the dural sac ending caudally at the L5-S1 intervertebral space (caudal blocks) and middle L3 (rostral blocks). Maximal CSF thresholds: threshold value was increased until at least one voxel in a CSF area appeared unlabeled and decreased until that voxel was labeled again: this final threshold was selected. Minimal root thresholds: thresholds values that selected cauda equina root area but not adjacent gray voxels in the CSF-root interface were chosen.
RESULTS: Significant differences were found between caudal and rostral thresholds. No significant differences were found between expert and nonexpert observers. Average max/min thresholds were around 1.30 but max/min CSF volumes were around 1.15. Great interindividual CSF volume variability was detected (max/min volumes 1.6-2.7).
CONCLUSIONS: The estimation of a close range of CSF volumes which probably contains the real CSF volume value can be standardized and calculated prior to certain intrathecal procedures.