OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of imaging the entire cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) volume using the SPACE MR sequence. METHODS: The SPACE sequence encompassing the brain and spine was performed at 1.5 T in 12 healthy volunteers and 26 consecutive patients with hydrocephalus. Image contrast was estimated using difference ratios in signal intensity between CSF and its background. Segmentation of CSF was performed using geometrical features and a topological assumption of CSF shapes. Subarachnoid and ventricular CSF space volumes were assessed in volunteers and patients and linear discriminant analysis was performed. RESULTS: Image contrast was 0.94 between the CSF and the brain and 0.90 between the CSF and the spinal cord. According to the phantom study, the accuracy of CSF volume measurement was 98.5 %. A clear distinction between patients and healthy volunteers was obtained using the linear discriminant analysis. Significant linear regression was found in healthy volunteers between ventricular (Vv) and the whole subarachnoid CSF volume (Vs) with Vv = 0.083 Vs. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging of the entire CSF volume is feasible in healthy volunteers and patients with hydrocephalus. CSF volume can be obtained on a whole-body scale. This approach may be of use for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with hydrocephalus. KEY POINTS: • MRI assessment of CSF volume is feasible in healthy volunteers/hydrocephalus patients. • CSF volume can be obtained on a whole-body scale. • The ratio of subarachnoid and ventricular CSF is constant in healthy volunteers. • CSF linear discriminant analysis can distinguish between patients and healthy volunteers. • Entire CSF volume imaging is useful for diagnosing and following hydrocephalus.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of imaging the entire cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) volume using the SPACE MR sequence. METHODS: The SPACE sequence encompassing the brain and spine was performed at 1.5 T in 12 healthy volunteers and 26 consecutive patients with hydrocephalus. Image contrast was estimated using difference ratios in signal intensity between CSF and its background. Segmentation of CSF was performed using geometrical features and a topological assumption of CSF shapes. Subarachnoid and ventricular CSF space volumes were assessed in volunteers and patients and linear discriminant analysis was performed. RESULTS: Image contrast was 0.94 between the CSF and the brain and 0.90 between the CSF and the spinal cord. According to the phantom study, the accuracy of CSF volume measurement was 98.5 %. A clear distinction between patients and healthy volunteers was obtained using the linear discriminant analysis. Significant linear regression was found in healthy volunteers between ventricular (Vv) and the whole subarachnoid CSF volume (Vs) with Vv = 0.083 Vs. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging of the entire CSF volume is feasible in healthy volunteers and patients with hydrocephalus. CSF volume can be obtained on a whole-body scale. This approach may be of use for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with hydrocephalus. KEY POINTS: • MRI assessment of CSF volume is feasible in healthy volunteers/hydrocephaluspatients. • CSF volume can be obtained on a whole-body scale. • The ratio of subarachnoid and ventricular CSF is constant in healthy volunteers. • CSF linear discriminant analysis can distinguish between patients and healthy volunteers. • Entire CSF volume imaging is useful for diagnosing and following hydrocephalus.
Authors: Shonit Punwani; Stuart A Taylor; Alan Bainbridge; Vineet Prakash; Steven Bandula; Enrico De Vita; Oystein E Olsen; Sharon F Hain; Nicola Stevens; Stephen Daw; Ananth Shankar; Jamshed B Bomanji; Paul D Humphries Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jeffry Neil; Xiangtian Kong; Jonathan Melamed; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja; Bachir Taouli Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tarek Zghaib; Ashkan A Malayeri; Esra G Ipek; Mohammadali Habibi; Dong Huang; Muhammad A Balouch; David A Bluemke; Hugh Calkins; Saman Nazarian; Stefan L Zimmerman Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: M J Fowler; J D Cotter; B E Knight; E M Sevick-Muraca; D I Sandberg; R W Sirianni Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 15.470
Authors: Lucas R Sass; Mohammadreza Khani; Gabryel Connely Natividad; R Shane Tubbs; Olivier Baledent; Bryn A Martin Journal: Fluids Barriers CNS Date: 2017-12-19
Authors: Mohammadreza Khani; Lucas R Sass; M Keith Sharp; Aaron R McCabe; Laura M Zitella Verbick; Shivanand P Lad; Bryn A Martin Journal: Fluids Barriers CNS Date: 2020-03-16
Authors: Mohammed A A Saleh; Chi Fong Loo; Jeroen Elassaiss-Schaap; Elizabeth C M De Lange Journal: J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 2.745