Literature DB >> 12439568

Pelvimetry and patient acceptability compared between open 0.5-T and closed 1.5-T MR systems.

Sven C A Michel1, Annett Rake, Lutz Götzmann, Burkhardt Seifert, Mattia Ferrazzini, Rabih Chaoui, Karl Treiber, Thomas M Keller, Borut Marincek, Rahel A Kubik-Huch.   

Abstract

Our objective was to compare maternal pelvimetry and patient acceptability between open low-field (0.5-T) and closed 1.5-T MR systems. Thirty women referred for pelvimetry (pregnant: n=15) were scanned twice in the supine position, once in the vertical open system and once in the closed system. Each patient completed a comfort and acceptability questionnaire. Pelvimetric and questionnaire data were compared between systems. Total scan time was double in the open system (7:52+/-1:47 vs 3:12+/-1:20 min). Poor image quality in the open system prevented assessment of interspinous and intertuberous diameters in one woman and all measurements in another, both pregnant, with abdominal circumferences >120 cm. The open system was much more acceptable in terms of claustrophobia and confinement (both p<0.01). Claustrophobia interrupted one closed examination. Thirty-three percent of pregnant women in both systems reported fear of fetal harm. Sixty percent of all women preferred the open system, 7% the closed system, and 33% had no preference. Limits of agreement of 3-5% from the mean for all diameters confirmed good pelvimetric reproducibility. Women's preference for open-system MR pelvimetry is feasible with abdominal circumferences <or=120 cm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12439568     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1400-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  3 in total

1.  Contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging of claustrophobic or oversized patients using an open low-field magnet.

Authors:  M Calabrese; D Brizzi; L Carbonaro; M Chiaramondia; M A Kirchin; F Sardanelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-02-04       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Amanda M Adams; Roberta A Jong; Richard G Barr; Daniel E Lehrer; Etta D Pisano; W Phil Evans; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Glenna J Gabrielli; Ellen B Mendelson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  High-field open versus short-bore magnetic resonance imaging of the spine: a randomized controlled comparison of image quality.

Authors:  Judith Enders; Matthias Rief; Elke Zimmermann; Patrick Asbach; Gerd Diederichs; Christoph Wetz; Eberhard Siebert; Moritz Wagner; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-31       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.