Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burkart, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, C. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burkart, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, C. D.

Radiology, Vol 195, 101-105, Copyright © 1995 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Upper abdominal phase-contrast MR angiography: comparison of cine and non-cine techniques

DJ Burkart and CD Johnson
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN 55905.

PURPOSE: To evaluate image quality, vessel conspicuity, and signal-to- noise ratio (S/N) of four two-dimensional magnetic resonance (MR) phase- contrast techniques: cine phase-contrast with respiratory compensation (CPC-R), cine phase-contrast without respiratory compensation (CPC), phase-contrast with two signals acquired (PC-2), and phase-contrast with eight signals acquired (PC-8). MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR angiographic images of the portal vein were obtained in 14 patients. RESULTS: Overall image quality was rated excellent in 10 of 14 patients (CPC-R), in one of 14 patients (CPC), in none of 14 patients (PC-2), and in one of 14 patients (PC-8). Views of 10 upper abdominal vessels were evaluated with each technique. The mean (+/- standard deviation) number of well-imaged vessels was 6 +/- 2 (CPC-R), 3 +/- 2 (CPC), 2 +/- 2 (PC-2), and 3 +/- 2 (PC-8). CPC-R images were significantly better in overall image quality and number of vessels seen (P < .01). Mean S/Ns were 10.8 +/- 3.4 (CPC-R), 6.8 +/- 2.7 (CPC), 4.5 +/- 1.7 (PC-2), and 6.4 +/- 2.1 (PC-8). S/N with CPC-R was significantly greater than with CPC, PC-2, or PC-8. CONCLUSION: CPC-R provided consistently higher quality angiographic images than were obtained with the other sequences studied.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
T. C. Lauenstein, W. Ajaj, B. Narin, S. C. Gohde, K. Kroger, J. F. Debatin, and S. G. Ruhm
MR Imaging of Apparent Small-Bowel Perfusion for Diagnosing Mesenteric Ischemia: Feasibility Study
Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 569 - 575.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
L. Kopka, J. Rodenwaldt, R. Vosshenrich, U. Fischer, B. Renner, T. Lorf, J. Graessner, B. Ringe, and E. Grabbe
Hepatic Blood Supply: Comparison of Optimized Dual Phase Contrast-enhanced Three-dimensional MR Angiography and Digital Subtraction Angiography
Radiology, April 1, 1999; 211(1): 51 - 58.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1995 by the Radiological Society of North America.