4.2 Article

Visualization of Endolymphatic Hydrops in Meniere's Disease after Single-dose Intravenous Gadolinium-based Contrast Medium: Timing of Optimal Enhancement

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICAL SCIENCES
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 43-51

出版社

JPN SOC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
DOI: 10.2463/mrms.11.43

关键词

intravenous; magnetic resonance imaging; Meniere's disease; 3D imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Visualization of endolymphatic hydrops (EH) in patients with Meniere's disease (MD) is now possible by heavily T-2-weighted 3-dimensional fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (hT(2)W-3D-FLAIR) obtained 4 hours after intravenous (IV) administration of single dose gadolinium-based contrast medium (GBCM). Although maximum enhancement has been reported 4 hours after contrast administration in healthy volunteers, the timing of optimal enhancement in patients with MD is not reported. We investigated if that optimal timing is earlier or later than 4 hours. Materials and Methods: We evaluated 10 consecutive patients with suspected MD whom we randomly divided into 2 groups. We obtained hT(2)W-3D-FLAIR before GBCM administration and 10 min, 3.5 hours, and 4 hours after GBCM administration in Group A and before and 10 min, 4 hours, and 4.5 hours after GBCM administration in Group B. We compared signal intensity ratio (SIR) values of the perilymph and pons between 3.5 and 4 hours in Group A and between 4 and 4.5 hours in Group B and evaluated grades of EH at 3.5 and 4 hours in Group A and at 4 and 4.5 hours in Group B. Results: SIR values did not differ significantly between 3.5 and 4 hours in Group A and between 4 and 4.5 hours in Group B. However, SIR values at 4 hours were significantly higher in Group A than Group B. Grades of EH agreed between 3.5 and 4 hours in Group A and between 4 and 4.5 hours in Group B. Conclusion: The optimal timing of contrast enhancement in patients with suspected MD remains unclear, but evaluation of EH may be possible from 3.5 to 4.5 hours after contrast administration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据