3.8 Article

Comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and enhanced T1-weighted sequencing in patients with multiple sclerosis

期刊

NEURORADIOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1971400916678224

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; diffusion-weighted imaging; increased diffusion; diffusion restriction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to assess whether demographic, brain anatomical regions and contrast enhancement show differences in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with increased diffusion lesions (ID group) compared with diffusion restriction (DR group). Method: MRI protocol comprised T1- and T2-weighted sequences with and without gadolinium (Gd), and sagittal three-dimensional FLAIR sequence, DWI and ADC maps were prospectively performed in 126 MS patients from January to December 2015. The investigation was conducted to evaluate differences in demographic, cord and brain regional, technical, and positive or negative Gd contrast imaging parameters in two groups of ID and DR. Statistical analysis was performed by using SPSS. Results: A total of 9.6% of patients showed DR. In the DR group, 66.6% of the patients showed contrast enhancement of plaques, whereas 29.2% of the IR group showed enhancement of plaques. The most prevalent group was non-enhanced plaques in the ID group, followed by Gd-enhanced plaques in the ID group. Patients in the ID group (90.4%) were significantly more than in the DR group (9.6%). Out of the 40 patients with Gd-enhanced plaques, 80.5% was from the ID group and 19.5% from the DR group. Conclusion: MRI of the brain, unlike of the cord, with Gd demonstrates significant difference in enhancement between the two groups (p < 0.05). No significant difference was seen in demographic, cord and brain regional, and technical parameters, EDSS, disease duration, and attack rate as well as demographic and regional parameters between the ID and decrease diffusion groups (p > 0.05).

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

3.8
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