PURPOSE: To compare direct magnetic resonance galactography (dMRG) and conventional galactography (CGal). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty women underwent CGal and dMRG. Duct localization and the depth of the assumed underlying pathology in CGal and dMRG were analyzed. RESULTS: Comparing CGal and dMRG, there was no significant difference regarding sector localization, but for depth of pathology (P=.023). CONCLUSION: Duct localization with dMRG was possible with the same reliability as with CGal. Thus, dMRG may have the potential to become an alternative method to CGal.
PURPOSE: To compare direct magnetic resonance galactography (dMRG) and conventional galactography (CGal). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty women underwent CGal and dMRG. Duct localization and the depth of the assumed underlying pathology in CGal and dMRG were analyzed. RESULTS: Comparing CGal and dMRG, there was no significant difference regarding sector localization, but for depth of pathology (P=.023). CONCLUSION: Duct localization with dMRG was possible with the same reliability as with CGal. Thus, dMRG may have the potential to become an alternative method to CGal.
Authors: Lucia Manganaro; Ilaria D'Ambrosio; Silvia Gigli; Francesca Di Pastena; Guglielmo Giraldi; Stefano Tardioli; Marialuisa Framarino; Lucio Maria Porfiri; Laura Ballesio Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Caroline Preuss; Peter A Fasching; Christian R Loehberg; Michael P Lux; Julius Emons; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael Uder; Markus Mueller-Schimpfle Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 2.915