4.5 Article

Differentiation between paraclinoid and cavernous sinus aneurysms with contrast-enhanced 3D constructive interference in steady-state MR imaging

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 130-133

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A0756

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differentiation between paraclinoid and cavernous sinus aneurysms of the internal carotid artery (ICA) is critical when considering treatment options. The purpose of this study was to determine whether contrast-enhanced (CE) 3D constructive interference in steady state (CISS) MR imaging is useful to differentiate between paraclinoid and cavernous sinus aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 11 aneurysms in 10 consecutive female patients, ranging from 52 to 66 years of age. All aneurysms were adjacent to the anterior clinoid process. After conventional and CE 3D-CISS imaging on a 1.5T MR imaging unit, all patients underwent surgery, and the relationship between the aneurysms and the dura was confirmed. Two neuroradiologists evaluated the location of the aneurysms on CE 3D-CISS images and classified them as intradural, partially intradural, and extradural aneurysms. Operative findings were used as a reference standard. To understand the imaging characteristics, we assessed the boundary and signal intensity of the cavernous sinus, CSF, and carotid artery on the side contralateral to the lesion. RESULTS: Operative findings disclosed that 5 aneurysms were intradural and 6 were extradural. All except 2 were accurately assessed with CE 3D-CISS imaging. One intradural aneurysm adjacent to a large cavernous aneurysm and 1 cavernous giant aneurysm were assessed as partially intradural. On CE 3D-CISS images, the boundary between the CSF, cavernous sinus, and carotid artery was identified by high signal-intensity contrast in all cases. CONCLUSION: CE 3D-CISS MR imaging is useful for the differentiation between paraclinoid and cavernous sinus aneurysms.

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

4.5
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