4.1 Article

Software-supported evaluation of gastric motility in MRI: A feasibility study

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12097

Keywords

gastric function; gastric motility; motility analysis; MRI; software-assisted measurement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of dedicated motility assessment software for quantitative evaluation of basic gastric motility and to validate it using manual measurements. MethodsTen patients (5 males/5 females, mean 41 years) out of a previous series of small bowel MR-enterography examinations with well visible stomachs were included in this Institutional Reviews Board approved, retrospective study. MRI (1.5-T, Siemens Sonata) was performed after standardised oral preparation (3% aqueous mannitol over 1h). Coronal 2DtrueFISP (TR 283.8/TE 1.89/FOV400/10mm slice) motility acquisitions covering the entire abdomen were performed in apnoea. For each patient, image analysis for assessment of gastric motility was performed both manually and using the dedicated software either the proximal (n=5) or in the distal (n=5) gastric corpus. The main quantitative endpoints (amplitude, frequency) describing gastric motility were compared using (paired) Student's t-Test. ResultsAll motility curves qualitatively matched each other (10/10). No significant differences (P>0.05) were found for amplitudes (mean: 18.17mm manual; 17.78mm software), contraction frequencies (5.1/min; 4.7/min) and mean lumen diameters (34.12mm; 33.13mm), respectively. Mean duration for a single measurement was significantly (P<0.001) lower with the software (6.40min manual technique; 1.40min software assisted). ConclusionsThe software proves to be feasible for fast and accurate measurement of basic gastric motility parameters providing comparable data in comparison to manual assessment methods. It might help to reduce the time needed for assessment of relevant characteristics of gastric motility.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available