上肢非增强磁共振静脉血管造影（MRV）与增强磁共振静脉血管造影及超声的比较。
Upper extremity non-contrast magnetic resonance venography (MRV) compared to contrast enhanced MRV and ultrasound.
作者信息
Lim Ruth P, Hornsey Emma, Ranatunga Dinesh, Hao Huming, Smith Julie, Spelman Tim, Chuen Jason, Goodwin Mark
机构信息
Department of Radiology, Austin Health, PO Box 555, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia; Department of Radiology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia; Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia.
Department of Radiology, Austin Health, PO Box 555, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia.
出版信息
Clin Imaging. 2017 Sep-Oct;45:51-57. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.05.020. Epub 2017 Jun 6.
PURPOSE
To assess feasibility, image quality and measured venous caliber of non-contrast MRV (NC-MRV) of central and upper extremity veins, compared to contrast-enhanced MRV (CE-MRV) and ultrasound (US) in healthy volunteers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
10 subjects underwent NC-MRV and CE-MRV at 1.5 T, with comparison to US. Two radiologists evaluated MRI for image quality (IQ) and venous caliber.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
NC-MRV is feasible, with inferior IQ but comparable venous caliber measurements CE-MRV (mean 7.9±4.58 mm vs. 7.83±4.62, p=0.13). Slightly larger upper limb caliber measurements were derived for NC-MRV and CE-MRV compared to US (NC-MRV 5.2±1.8 mm, CE-MRV 4.9±1.6 mm, US 4.5±1.8 mm, both p<0.001).
目的
在健康志愿者中，将非增强磁共振静脉血管造影（NC-MRV）与增强磁共振静脉血管造影（CE-MRV）及超声（US）相比较，评估中枢和上肢静脉的NC-MRV的可行性、图像质量及所测静脉管径。
材料与方法
10名受试者在1.5T条件下接受NC-MRV和CE-MRV检查，并与超声检查进行比较。两名放射科医生对MRI的图像质量（IQ）和静脉管径进行评估。
结果与结论
NC-MRV是可行的，其图像质量较差，但所测静脉管径与CE-MRV相当（平均7.9±4.58mm对7.83±4.62，p = 0.13）。与超声相比，NC-MRV和CE-MRV所测上肢管径略大（NC-MRV 5.2±1.8mm，CE-MRV 4.9±1.6mm，US 4.5±1.8mm，两者p均<0.001）。
Zotero 插件