4.4 Article

Detailed imaging of the normal anatomy and pathologic conditions of the cavernous region at 3 Tesla using a contrast-enhanced MR angiography

Journal

NEURORADIOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 12, Pages 947-954

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-011-0837-3

Keywords

Cavernous sinus; Cranial nerves; Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography; CE-MRA; Pituitary adenoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential of a high-resolution contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) at 3 Tesla for the delineation of the cavernous sinus (CS) anatomy both under normal and under pathological conditions. Fifteen patients without pathologies in the CS and ten patients with pituitary adenomas were included. The CE-MRA was performed on a 3-Tesla scanner and analyzed collaboratively by two readers. The cranial nerves (CNs) within the CS, namely CNIII, CNIV, CNV1, CNV2, and CNVI, were identified in both patient groups. In the adenoma patients it was also assessed whether and to which extend the adenoma invaded the CS and the spatial relationship between tumor and CNs was determined. In the patients with normal CS anatomy, CNIII could be identified in 100%, CNIV in 86.7%, and CNV1, CNV2, as well as CNVI in 100% of analyzed sides. Pituitary adenomas invaded the CS unilaterally (right side) in four patients, and bilaterally in six patients. In patients with adenomas, the CN could be identified and differentiated from the tumor in the following percentages: CNIII in 100%, CNIV in 70%, both CNV1 and CNV2 in 90%, and CNVI in 100%. In all these cases, the tumor-nerve spatial relationship could be visualized. 3-Tesla CE-MRA allows detailed imaging of the complex anatomy of the CS and its structures. In adenoma patients, it clearly visualizes the spatial relationship between tumor and CNs, and thus might be helpful to optimize presurgical planning.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available