Literature DB >> 19629993

3T versus 1.5T phased-array MRI in the presurgical work-up of patients with partial epilepsy of uncertain focus.

Maeike Zijlmans1, Gérard A P de Kort, Theodore D Witkamp, Geertjan M Huiskamp, Jan-Henry Seppenwoolde, Alexander C van Huffelen, Frans S S Leijten.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To study 3T compared to 1.5T phased array magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the presurgical work-up of patients with epilepsy with complex focus localization.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 37 patients (>10 years) in preoperative work-up for epilepsy surgery were offered 3T in addition to 1.5T MRI if ambiguity existed about the epileptic focus. Scans were randomly reviewed by two observers, blinded for prior imaging, patient-identifying information, and each other's assessments, followed by a consensus meeting. The number of abnormal scans, detected lesions, and interobserver agreement were calculated and compared. The final consensus was compared to original scan reports.
RESULTS: One observer identified 22 lesions in both 3 and 1.5T scans, while the second identified more lesions in 1.5T scans (28 vs. 20). 3T MRI had better interobserver agreement. 3T revealed more dysplasias, while 1.5T revealed more tissue loss and mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS). The final consensus yielded 29 lesions, whereas original reports identified only 17 lesions.
CONCLUSION: The 3T scans revealed different lesions compared to 1.5T. Patients can benefit most from 3T scans when a dysplasia is suspected. Reevaluation by another experienced neuroradiologist is advised in case of negative or equivocal MRIs. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19629993     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21811

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  17 in total

1.  Combining atlas-based parcellation of regional brain data acquired across scanners at 1.5 T and 3.0 T field strengths.

Authors:  Adolf Pfefferbaum; Torsten Rohlfing; Margaret J Rosenbloom; Edith V Sullivan
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 2.  Neuroimaging of epilepsy.

Authors:  Fernando Cendes; William H Theodore; Benjamin H Brinkmann; Vlastimil Sulc; Gregory D Cascino
Journal:  Handb Clin Neurol       Date:  2016

3.  [New aspects in the field of epilepsy].

Authors:  F Rosenow; K M Klein; A Strzelczyk; H M Hamer; K Menzler; S Bauer; S Knake
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.214

Review 4.  Post-processing of structural MRI for individualized diagnostics.

Authors:  Pascal Martin; Benjamin Bender; Niels K Focke
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2015-04

5.  Selecting patients for epilepsy surgery.

Authors:  Kanjana Unnwongse; Tim Wehner; Nancy Foldvary-Schaefer
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 5.081

6.  An image processing algorithm to aid diagnosis of mesial temporal sclerosis in children: a case-control study.

Authors:  Benjamin S Strnad; Hilary L P Orlowski; Matthew S Parsons; Amber Salter; Sonika Dahiya; Aseem Sharma
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-10-02

7.  Evaluation of cortical thickness and brain volume on 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in children with frontal lobe epilepsy.

Authors:  Feride Kural Rahatli; Taner Sezer; Arzu Ceylan Has; Ahmet Muhtesem Agildere
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 3.307

Review 8.  Refractory epilepsy in children.

Authors:  Satinder Aneja; Puneet Jain
Journal:  Indian J Pediatr       Date:  2014-08-09       Impact factor: 1.967

Review 9.  A modern epilepsy surgery treatment algorithm: Incorporating traditional and emerging technologies.

Authors:  Dario J Englot
Journal:  Epilepsy Behav       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 2.937

10.  Multimodal neuroimaging in presurgical evaluation of childhood epilepsy.

Authors:  Da Eun Jung; Joon-Soo Lee
Journal:  Korean J Pediatr       Date:  2010-08-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.