AIM: To evaluate the impact of butylscopolamine on the quality of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images of the prostate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-two MRI examinations of the prostate were retrospectively analysed. MRI was performed with a combined endorectal/body phased-array coil including proton density-weighted (PD) sequence, T1-weighted turbo spin-echo (TSE)-sequence, and T2-weighted TSE-sequences. Forty milligrams of butylscopolamine was administered intramuscularly in 31 patients (im-group) and intravenously in 30 patients (iv-group). Twenty-one patients did not receive premedication with butylscopolamine (ø-group). Overall image quality, delineation of the bowel wall, and visualization of the prostate, neurovascular bundle, and pelvic lymph nodes were evaluated qualitatively using a five-point scale (from 1=excellent to 5=non-diagnostic/structure not discernible). Motion artefacts within the endorectal coil were quantified by baseline adjusted signal intensities inside the endorectal coil area. RESULTS: Delineation of the bowel wall using the PD-sequence was significantly improved after both intramuscular and intravenous butylscopolamine administration (ø-group: 3.6+/-0.7; im-group: 2.9+/-0.7; iv-group: 2.9+/-0.7; p=0.001). However, there were no significant differences in motion artefacts measured within the endorectal coil (ø-group: 1.18+/-0.14; im-group: 1.15+/-0.11; iv-group: 1.12+/-0.06; p=0.39). There were also no significant differences in qualitative assessment of visualization of the prostate, neurovascular bundle, pelvic lymph nodes, and of overall image quality between the study groups. CONCLUSION: : In conclusion, butylscopolamine had only a small effect on image quality and is not mandatory for MRI of the prostate. Copyright 2010 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
AIM: To evaluate the impact of butylscopolamine on the quality of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images of the prostate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-two MRI examinations of the prostate were retrospectively analysed. MRI was performed with a combined endorectal/body phased-array coil including proton density-weighted (PD) sequence, T1-weighted turbo spin-echo (TSE)-sequence, and T2-weighted TSE-sequences. Forty milligrams of butylscopolamine was administered intramuscularly in 31 patients (im-group) and intravenously in 30 patients (iv-group). Twenty-one patients did not receive premedication with butylscopolamine (ø-group). Overall image quality, delineation of the bowel wall, and visualization of the prostate, neurovascular bundle, and pelvic lymph nodes were evaluated qualitatively using a five-point scale (from 1=excellent to 5=non-diagnostic/structure not discernible). Motion artefacts within the endorectal coil were quantified by baseline adjusted signal intensities inside the endorectal coil area. RESULTS: Delineation of the bowel wall using the PD-sequence was significantly improved after both intramuscular and intravenous butylscopolamine administration (ø-group: 3.6+/-0.7; im-group: 2.9+/-0.7; iv-group: 2.9+/-0.7; p=0.001). However, there were no significant differences in motion artefacts measured within the endorectal coil (ø-group: 1.18+/-0.14; im-group: 1.15+/-0.11; iv-group: 1.12+/-0.06; p=0.39). There were also no significant differences in qualitative assessment of visualization of the prostate, neurovascular bundle, pelvic lymph nodes, and of overall image quality between the study groups. CONCLUSION: : In conclusion, butylscopolamine had only a small effect on image quality and is not mandatory for MRI of the prostate. Copyright 2010 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Michael Meier-Schroers; Christian Marx; Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Karsten Wolter; Jürgen Gieseke; Wolfgang Block; Alois Martin Sprinkart; Frank Traeber; Winfried Willinek; Hans Heinz Schild; Guido Matthias Kukuk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: T Ullrich; M Quentin; A K Schmaltz; C Arsov; C Rubbert; D Blondin; R Rabenalt; P Albers; G Antoch; L Schimmöller Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Cynthia Schmidt; Andreas M Hötker; Urs J Muehlematter; Irene A Burger; Olivio F Donati; Borna K Barth Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-03-26