Shailee V Lala1, Naomi Strubel2, Nicole Nocera2, Mark E Bittman2, Nancy R Fefferman2. 1. Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, 660 First Ave., New York, NY, 10016, USA. shailee.lala@nyumc.org. 2. Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, 660 First Ave., New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment for appendicitis is limited by exam time and patient cooperation. The radially sampled 3-dimensional (3-D) T1-weighted, gradient recalled echo sequence (radial GRE) is a free-breathing, motion robust sequence that may be useful in evaluating appendicitis in children. OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of detection of the normal appendix with contrast-enhanced radial GRE versus contrast-enhanced 3-D GRE and a multi-sequence study including contrast-enhanced radial GRE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients ages 7-18 years undergoing abdominal-pelvic contrast-enhanced MRI between Jan. 1, 2012, and April 1, 2016. Visualization of the appendix was assessed by consensus between two pediatric radiologists. The rate of detection of the appendix for each sequence and combination of sequences was compared using a McNemar test. RESULTS: The rate of detection of the normal appendix on contrast-enhanced radial GRE was significantly higher than on contrast-enhanced 3-D GRE (76% vs. 57.3%, P=0.003). The rate of detection of the normal appendix with multi-sequence MRI including contrast-enhanced radial GRE was significantly higher than on contrast-enhanced 3-D GRE (81.3% vs. 57%, P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the rate of detection of the normal appendix on contrast-enhanced radial GRE alone and multi-sequence MRI including contrast-enhanced radial GRE (76% vs. 81.3%, P=0.267). CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced radial GRE allows superior detection of the normal appendix compared to contrast-enhanced 3-D GRE. The rate of detection of the normal appendix on contrast-enhanced radial GRE alone is nearly as good as when the contrast-enhanced radial GRE is interpreted with additional sequences.
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment for appendicitis is limited by exam time and patient cooperation. The radially sampled 3-dimensional (3-D) T1-weighted, gradient recalled echo sequence (radial GRE) is a free-breathing, motion robust sequence that may be useful in evaluating appendicitis in children. OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of detection of the normal appendix with contrast-enhanced radial GRE versus contrast-enhanced 3-D GRE and a multi-sequence study including contrast-enhanced radial GRE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients ages 7-18 years undergoing abdominal-pelvic contrast-enhanced MRI between Jan. 1, 2012, and April 1, 2016. Visualization of the appendix was assessed by consensus between two pediatric radiologists. The rate of detection of the appendix for each sequence and combination of sequences was compared using a McNemar test. RESULTS: The rate of detection of the normal appendix on contrast-enhanced radial GRE was significantly higher than on contrast-enhanced 3-D GRE (76% vs. 57.3%, P=0.003). The rate of detection of the normal appendix with multi-sequence MRI including contrast-enhanced radial GRE was significantly higher than on contrast-enhanced 3-D GRE (81.3% vs. 57%, P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the rate of detection of the normal appendix on contrast-enhanced radial GRE alone and multi-sequence MRI including contrast-enhanced radial GRE (76% vs. 81.3%, P=0.267). CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced radial GRE allows superior detection of the normal appendix compared to contrast-enhanced 3-D GRE. The rate of detection of the normal appendix on contrast-enhanced radial GRE alone is nearly as good as when the contrast-enhanced radial GRE is interpreted with additional sequences.
Authors: Martin P Smith; Douglas S Katz; Tasneem Lalani; Laura R Carucci; Brooks D Cash; David H Kim; Robert J Piorkowski; William C Small; Stephanie E Spottswood; Mark Tulchinsky; Vahid Yaghmai; Judy Yee; Max P Rosen Journal: Ultrasound Q Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.657
Authors: Xin Wu; Eytan Raz; Tobias K Block; Christian Geppert; Mari Hagiwara; Mary T Bruno; Girish M Fatterpekar Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Lucila A Rosines; Daniel S Chow; Brooke S Lampl; Susie Chen; Samantha Gordon; Leonora W Mui; Gudrun Aspelund; Carrie B Ruzal-Shapiro Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Einat Blumfield; Michael M Moore; Mary K Drake; Thomas R Goodman; Kristopher N Lewis; Laura T Meyer; Thang D Ngo; Christina Sammet; Arta Luana Stanescu; David W Swenson; Thomas L Slovis; Ramesh S Iyer Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2017-03-10
Authors: Michael M Moore; Afif N Kulaylat; Christopher S Hollenbeak; Brett W Engbrecht; Jonathan R Dillman; Sosamma T Methratta Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2016-05-26
Authors: Hyun-Hae Cho; Young Hun Choi; Jung-Eun Cheon; So Mi Lee; Woo Sun Kim; In-One Kim; MunYoung Paek Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 3.959