PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not the vertebral flow of patients with vertigo and normal brain magnetic resonance (MR) images was decreased in comparison with normal controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cerebral blood flow (CBF) was quantitatively measured by a two-dimensional phase contrast cine MR imaging technique in 24 normal controls (mean age, 38.6 years; range, 12-70) and 23 patients (mean age, 53.7 years; range, 19-76) with a 1.5 Tesla MR imaging unit. RESULTS: Inter- and intraobserver variation in blood flow measurements was small (r = 0.970, standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 2.9 ml, n = 80; r = 0.963, SEE = 4.6 ml, n = 40, respectively). In the normal group, mean summed vertebral flow (171 ml/min, SD = 40.6) was significantly less than mean summed carotid flow (523 ml/min, SD = 111). Right vertebral flow (80.2 ml/min, SD = 30.5) was less than left vertebral flow (91.2 ml/min, SD = 38.2), but the difference was not statistically significant (p < 0.05). In the 23 patients, although the summed vertebral flows of two patients (63.3, 88.8 ml/min) were significantly less than that of the normal group, mean summed vertebral flow (165 ml/min, SD = 59.1) showed no significant difference from that of the normal group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the majority of patients had normal CBF. This method is clinically useful for estimating CBF.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not the vertebral flow of patients with vertigo and normal brain magnetic resonance (MR) images was decreased in comparison with normal controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cerebral blood flow (CBF) was quantitatively measured by a two-dimensional phase contrast cine MR imaging technique in 24 normal controls (mean age, 38.6 years; range, 12-70) and 23 patients (mean age, 53.7 years; range, 19-76) with a 1.5 Tesla MR imaging unit. RESULTS: Inter- and intraobserver variation in blood flow measurements was small (r = 0.970, standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 2.9 ml, n = 80; r = 0.963, SEE = 4.6 ml, n = 40, respectively). In the normal group, mean summed vertebral flow (171 ml/min, SD = 40.6) was significantly less than mean summed carotid flow (523 ml/min, SD = 111). Right vertebral flow (80.2 ml/min, SD = 30.5) was less than left vertebral flow (91.2 ml/min, SD = 38.2), but the difference was not statistically significant (p < 0.05). In the 23 patients, although the summed vertebral flows of two patients (63.3, 88.8 ml/min) were significantly less than that of the normal group, mean summed vertebral flow (165 ml/min, SD = 59.1) showed no significant difference from that of the normal group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the majority of patients had normal CBF. This method is clinically useful for estimating CBF.
Authors: Rohini Retarekar; Manasi Ramachandran; Benjamin Berkowitz; Robert E Harbaugh; David Hasan; Robert H Rosenwasser; Christopher S Ogilvy; Madhavan L Raghavan Journal: Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 1.763
Authors: K R Marsden; M J Haykowsky; J D Smirl; H Jones; M D Nelson; Luis A Altamirano-Diaz; J C Gelinas; Y C Tzeng; K J Smith; C K Willie; D M Bailey; P N Ainslie Journal: Age (Dordr) Date: 2011-05-11
Authors: José González-Alonso; Mads K Dalsgaard; Takuya Osada; Stefanos Volianitis; Ellen A Dawson; Chie C Yoshiga; Niels H Secher Journal: J Physiol Date: 2004-03-05 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Piotr Kaszczewski; Michal Elwertowski; Jerzy Leszczynski; Tomasz Ostrowski; Zbigniew Galazka Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 4.241