INTRODUCTION: This study presents a comparison of established methods for measuring dural ectasia with a new quantitative method of assessing this clinical feature. METHODS: Seventeen patients with an identified mutation in FBN1 were examined for dural ectasia. The results were compared with 17 age- and sex-matched controls. Our images were also evaluated using the two methods of quantifying dural ectasia, namely those of Ahn et al. and of Oosterhof et al. RESULTS: With our method, 80% MFS1 patients and 7% controls fulfilled the criterion for dural ectasia. Using the method of Oosterhof et al., dural ectasia was found in 88% patients with MFS1 and in 47% controls. Using the method of Ahn et al. 76% patients with Marfan syndrome and 29% controls showed dural ectasia. CONCLUSION: We present a novel quantitative method of evaluating MRT images for dural ectasia, which, in our own patient cohort, performed better than those previously described.
INTRODUCTION: This study presents a comparison of established methods for measuring dural ectasia with a new quantitative method of assessing this clinical feature. METHODS: Seventeen patients with an identified mutation in FBN1 were examined for dural ectasia. The results were compared with 17 age- and sex-matched controls. Our images were also evaluated using the two methods of quantifying dural ectasia, namely those of Ahn et al. and of Oosterhof et al. RESULTS: With our method, 80% MFS1patients and 7% controls fulfilled the criterion for dural ectasia. Using the method of Oosterhof et al., dural ectasia was found in 88% patients with MFS1 and in 47% controls. Using the method of Ahn et al. 76% patients with Marfan syndrome and 29% controls showed dural ectasia. CONCLUSION: We present a novel quantitative method of evaluating MRT images for dural ectasia, which, in our own patient cohort, performed better than those previously described.
Authors: T Oosterhof; M Groenink; F J Hulsmans; B J Mulder; E E van der Wall; R Smit; R C Hennekam Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R Fattori; C A Nienaber; B Descovich; P Ambrosetto; L B Reggiani; G Pepe; U Kaufmann; E Negrini; Y von Kodolitsch; G F Gensini Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-09-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: B Söylen; K K Singh; A Abuzainin; K Rommel; H Becker; M Arslan-Kirchner; J Schmidtke Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Lily Pollock; Ashley Ridout; James Teh; Colin Nnadi; Dionisios Stavroulias; Alex Pitcher; Edward Blair; Paul Wordsworth; Tonia L Vincent Journal: Curr Rheumatol Rep Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 4.592
Authors: Luigi Bassani; Christopher S Graffeo; Navid Behrooz; Vineet Tyagi; Taylor Wilson; Saul Penaranda; David Zagzag; Daniel B Rifkin; Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff; Girish Fatterpekar; Dimitris Placantonakis Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2014-01-21