4.7 Article

MR susceptibility weighted complements conventional imaging (SWI) contrast enhanced T1 weighted MRI in characterizing brain abnormalities of Sturge-Weber Syndrome

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 300-307

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21435

关键词

susceptibility weighted imaging; Sturge-Weber syndrome; contrast enhanced T1 weighted imaging; T1 gadolinium; magnetic resonance; magnetic resonance imaging

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS041922, R01 NS041922-05A1, R01-NS041922, R01 NS041922-04] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) in comparison to standard Tl weighted postgadolinium contrast (T1-Gd) MRI in patients with SturgeWeber Syndrome (SWS). Materials and Methods: Twelve children (mean age, 5.6 years) with the diagnosis of SWS and unilateral hemispheric involvement were recruited prospectively and examined with high resolution three dimensional SWI and conventional TI-Gd. Both SWI and TI-Gd images were evaluated using a four-grade scoring system according to six types of imaging findings (enlargement of transmedullary veins, periventricular veins, and choroid plexus, as well as leptomeningeal abnormality, cortical gyriform abnormality, and gray matter/white matter junctional abnormality). The scores of SWI versus T1-Gd images were then compared for each type of abnormality. Results: SWI was superior to T1-Gd in identifying the enlarged transmedullary veins (P = 0.0020), abnormal periventricular veins (P = 0.0078), cortical gyriform abnormalities (P = 0.0020), and gray matter/white matter junction abnormalities (P = 0.0078). Conversely, TI-Gd was better than SWI in identifying enlarged choroid plexus (P = 0.0050) and leptomeningeal abnormalities (P = 0.0050). Conclusion: SWI can provide useful and unique information complementary to conventional contrast enhanced TI weighted MRI for characterizing SWS. Therefore, SWI should be integrated into routine clinical MRI protocols for suspected SWS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据