4.3 Article

Value of 3.0 T MR imaging in refractory partial epilepsy and negative 1.5 T MRI

期刊

SEIZURE-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPILEPSY
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 475-478

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2010.07.002

关键词

Focal epilepsy; Refractory epilepsy; Magnetic resonance imaging; 3.0 T vs 1.5 T

资金

  1. Fonds pour la Recherche en Sante du Quebec

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: High-field 3.0 T MR scanners provide an improved signal-to-noise ratio which can be translated in higher image resolution, possibly allowing critical detection of subtle epileptogenic lesions missed on standard-field 1.0-1.5 T MRIs. In this study, the authors explore the potential value of re-imaging at 3.0 T patients with refractory partial epilepsy and negative 1.5 T MRI. Methods: We retrospectively identified all patients with refractory partial epilepsy candidate for surgery who had undergone a 3.0 T MR study after a negative 1.5 T MR study. High-field 3.0 T MRIs were reviewed qualitatively by neuroradiologists experienced in interpreting epilepsy studies with access to clinical information. Relevance and impact on clinical management were assessed by an epileptologist. Results: Between November 2006 and August 2009, 36 patients with refractory partial epilepsy candidate for surgery underwent 3.0 T MR study after a 1.5 T MR study failed to disclose a relevant epileptogenic lesion. A potential lesion was found only in two patients (5.6%, 95% CI: 1.5-18.1%). Both were found to have hippocampal atrophy congruent with other presurgical localization techniques which resulted in omission of an invasive EEG study and direct passage to surgery. Conclusions: The frequency of detection of a new lesion by re-imaging at 3.0 T patients with refractory partial epilepsy candidate for surgery was found to be low, but seems to offer the potential of a significant clinical impact for selected patients. This finding needs to be validated in a prospective controlled study. (C) 2010 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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