Swati Deshmukh1, Kyle Tegtmeyer2, Mounisha Kovour3, Shivani Ahlawat4, Jonathan Samet1. 1. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 420 E Superior St, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 2. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 420 E Superior St, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 3. University of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign, 601 E John St, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic contribution of contrast-enhanced 3D STIR (ce3D-SS) high-resolution magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of peripheral nerve pathology relative to conventional 2D sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this IRB-approved retrospective study, two radiologists reviewed 60 MR neurography studies with nerve pathology findings. The diagnostic contribution of ce3D-SS imaging was scored on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = no additional information, 2 = supports interpretation, 3 = moderate additional information, and 4 = diagnosis not possible without ce3D-SS). Image quality, nerve visualization, and detection of nerve pathology were also assessed for both standard 2D neurography and ce3D-SS sequences utilizing a 3-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics are reported. RESULTS: The diagnostic contribution score for ce3D-SS imaging was 2.25 for the brachial plexus, 1.50 for extremities, and 1.75 for the lumbosacral plexus. For brachial plexus, the mean consensus scores for image quality, nerve visualization, and detection of nerve pathology were 2.55, 2.5, and 2.55 for 2D and 2.35, 2.45, and 2.45 for 3D. For extremities, the mean consensus scores for image quality, nerve visualization, and detection of nerve pathology were 2.60, 2.80, and 2.70 for 2D and 1.8, 2.20, and 2.10 for 3D. For lumbosacral plexus, the mean consensus scores for image quality, nerve visualization, and detection of nerve pathology were 2.45, 2.75, and 2.65 for 2D and 2.0, 2.45, and 2.25 for 3D. CONCLUSION: Overall, our study supports the potential application of ce3D-SS imaging for MRN of the brachial plexus but suggests that 2D MRN protocols are sufficient for MRN of the extremities and lumbosacral plexus.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic contribution of contrast-enhanced 3D STIR (ce3D-SS) high-resolution magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of peripheral nerve pathology relative to conventional 2D sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this IRB-approved retrospective study, two radiologists reviewed 60 MR neurography studies with nerve pathology findings. The diagnostic contribution of ce3D-SS imaging was scored on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = no additional information, 2 = supports interpretation, 3 = moderate additional information, and 4 = diagnosis not possible without ce3D-SS). Image quality, nerve visualization, and detection of nerve pathology were also assessed for both standard 2D neurography and ce3D-SS sequences utilizing a 3-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics are reported. RESULTS: The diagnostic contribution score for ce3D-SS imaging was 2.25 for the brachial plexus, 1.50 for extremities, and 1.75 for the lumbosacral plexus. For brachial plexus, the mean consensus scores for image quality, nerve visualization, and detection of nerve pathology were 2.55, 2.5, and 2.55 for 2D and 2.35, 2.45, and 2.45 for 3D. For extremities, the mean consensus scores for image quality, nerve visualization, and detection of nerve pathology were 2.60, 2.80, and 2.70 for 2D and 1.8, 2.20, and 2.10 for 3D. For lumbosacral plexus, the mean consensus scores for image quality, nerve visualization, and detection of nerve pathology were 2.45, 2.75, and 2.65 for 2D and 2.0, 2.45, and 2.25 for 3D. CONCLUSION: Overall, our study supports the potential application of ce3D-SS imaging for MRN of the brachial plexus but suggests that 2D MRN protocols are sufficient for MRN of the extremities and lumbosacral plexus.
Authors: A Chhabra; G K Thawait; T Soldatos; R S Thakkar; F Del Grande; M Chalian; J A Carrino Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Darryl B Sneag; Steve P Daniels; Christian Geannette; Sophie C Queler; Bin Q Lin; Chinthaka de Silva; Ek Tsoon Tan Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Alexander T Mazal; Ali Faramarzalian; Jonathan D Samet; Kevin Gill; Jonathan Cheng; Avneesh Chhabra Journal: Expert Rev Med Devices Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.166