BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: PCMR, widely used for the evaluation of blood flow, has been adopted for the assessment of cerebrospinal fluid flow in a variety of disorders. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of 2 fast PCMR techniques for measuring CSF flow. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Velocities were calculated from RPC and CPC images of fluid flowing in a tube at a constant velocity. Error and the COV were computed for average and peak velocities. Additionally, measurements of sinusoidally fluctuating flow and of CSF flow in 5 healthy volunteers were acquired with the RPC and CPC acquisitions. RESULTS: For constant velocity experiments, error for the RPC and CPC acquisitions averaged +1.15% and +8.91% and COVs averaged 1.29% and 3.01%, respectively. For peak velocities of >or=12.6 cm/s, error with RPC or CPC ranged from -33.3% to -36.9% and COVs were 0%-4% for RPC and 1%-7% for CPC. For peak velocities of <or=6.4 cm/s, RPC and CPC overestimated velocity by >250%. For fluctuating flow, both acquisitions showed similar flow patterns. In volunteer studies, peak systolic and diastolic velocities were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The RPC and CPC sequences measure velocities on the order of CSF flow with an average error of >or=9%. The 2 techniques significantly overestimate peak velocities <6.4 cm/s, with maximum errors of 209% and 276% and maximum COVs of 100% and 73% for the RPC and CPC sequences, respectively. Measurements of CSF velocities in human volunteers and of sinusoidally fluctuating phantom velocities did not differ significantly between the 2 techniques.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: PCMR, widely used for the evaluation of blood flow, has been adopted for the assessment of cerebrospinal fluid flow in a variety of disorders. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of 2 fast PCMR techniques for measuring CSF flow. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Velocities were calculated from RPC and CPC images of fluid flowing in a tube at a constant velocity. Error and the COV were computed for average and peak velocities. Additionally, measurements of sinusoidally fluctuating flow and of CSF flow in 5 healthy volunteers were acquired with the RPC and CPC acquisitions. RESULTS: For constant velocity experiments, error for the RPC and CPC acquisitions averaged +1.15% and +8.91% and COVs averaged 1.29% and 3.01%, respectively. For peak velocities of >or=12.6 cm/s, error with RPC or CPC ranged from -33.3% to -36.9% and COVs were 0%-4% for RPC and 1%-7% for CPC. For peak velocities of <or=6.4 cm/s, RPC and CPC overestimated velocity by >250%. For fluctuating flow, both acquisitions showed similar flow patterns. In volunteer studies, peak systolic and diastolic velocities were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The RPC and CPC sequences measure velocities on the order of CSF flow with an average error of >or=9%. The 2 techniques significantly overestimate peak velocities <6.4 cm/s, with maximum errors of 209% and 276% and maximum COVs of 100% and 73% for the RPC and CPC sequences, respectively. Measurements of CSF velocities in human volunteers and of sinusoidally fluctuating phantom velocities did not differ significantly between the 2 techniques.
Authors: Victor M Haughton; Frank R Korosec; Joshua E Medow; Maria T Dolar; Bermans J Iskandar Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Katharina Vellguth; Jan Brüning; Lennart Tautz; Franziska Degener; Isaac Wamala; Simon Sündermann; Ulrich Kertzscher; Titus Kuehne; Anja Hennemuth; Volkmar Falk; Leonid Goubergrits Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Erika Kristina Lindstrøm; Jakob Schreiner; Geir Andre Ringstad; Victor Haughton; Per Kristian Eide; Kent-Andre Mardal Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2018-02-21
Authors: Alejandro Roldán-Alzate; Christopher J Francois; Oliver Wieben; Scott B Reeder Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 3.959