Michalis Mantatzis1, Thanos Milousis2, Simoni Katergari2, Andreas Delistamatis3, Dimitrios N Papachristou4, Panos Prassopoulos3. 1. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Democritus University of Thrace, Dragana, Alexandroupolis 68100, Greece. Electronic address: mmantatz@med.duth.gr. 2. Department of Internal Medicine and Endocrinology, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Democritus University of Thrace, Dragana, Alexandroupolis 68100, Greece. 4. Department of Endocrinology, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To introduce a simple magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol for quantitative assessment of intraperitoneal, retroperitoneal, and subcutaneous adipose tissue (AT) and to compare AT distribution between diabetic and nondiabetic individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight consecutive male diabetic patients (group A) and 38 males (who matched for body mass index [BMI]) without metabolic syndrome (group B) underwent abdominal MRI with a three-dimensional spoiled gradient echo T1-weighted sequence. The amounts of intraperitoneal, retroperitoneal, and subcutaneous AT were calculated on a workstation, after manual anatomic segmentation and were correlated with 10 anthropometric measurements. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were used for correlation of AT volumes with anthropometric measurements, Wilcoxon test to compare AT measurements between automatic and manual technique used, and unpaired t test to compare volumes of AT compartments between group A and B. RESULTS: Diabetic patients exhibited larger amount of intraperitoneal and retroperitoneal AT than normal individuals at all levels (t = 2.02,P < .05). Among anthropometric measurements, the waist circumference, BMI, and body fat percentage exhibited the best correlations with intraperitoneal and retroperitoneal AT (group A (r) = 0.88/0.78/0.0.69 and group B (r) = 0.91/0.87/0.81). The L2-L5 set of images was found to be the most representative of the amount of AT volumes. CONCLUSIONS: Amount and distribution of AT can be accurately and easily assessed on MRI. Quantification of intraabdominal AT may promote the role of imaging in the study of metabolic syndrome.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To introduce a simple magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol for quantitative assessment of intraperitoneal, retroperitoneal, and subcutaneous adipose tissue (AT) and to compare AT distribution between diabetic and nondiabetic individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight consecutive male diabeticpatients (group A) and 38 males (who matched for body mass index [BMI]) without metabolic syndrome (group B) underwent abdominal MRI with a three-dimensional spoiled gradient echo T1-weighted sequence. The amounts of intraperitoneal, retroperitoneal, and subcutaneous AT were calculated on a workstation, after manual anatomic segmentation and were correlated with 10 anthropometric measurements. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were used for correlation of AT volumes with anthropometric measurements, Wilcoxon test to compare AT measurements between automatic and manual technique used, and unpaired t test to compare volumes of AT compartments between group A and B. RESULTS:Diabeticpatients exhibited larger amount of intraperitoneal and retroperitoneal AT than normal individuals at all levels (t = 2.02,P < .05). Among anthropometric measurements, the waist circumference, BMI, and body fat percentage exhibited the best correlations with intraperitoneal and retroperitoneal AT (group A (r) = 0.88/0.78/0.0.69 and group B (r) = 0.91/0.87/0.81). The L2-L5 set of images was found to be the most representative of the amount of AT volumes. CONCLUSIONS: Amount and distribution of AT can be accurately and easily assessed on MRI. Quantification of intraabdominal AT may promote the role of imaging in the study of metabolic syndrome.
Authors: Manoj Kumar Sarma; Andres Saucedo; Christine Hema Darwin; Ely Richard Felker; Kavya Umachandran; Daniel Kohanghadosh; Edward Xu; Steve Raman; Michael Albert Thomas Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-07-12 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Joel Kullberg; Anders Hedström; John Brandberg; Robin Strand; Lars Johansson; Göran Bergström; Håkan Ahlström Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 4.379