4.5 Article

Magnetic Resonance Lymphography at 3T: A Promising Noninvasive Approach to Characterise Inguinal Lymphatic Vessel Leakage

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.09.007

关键词

MR; Lymphography; Lymphatic diseases

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30970819]
  2. Shanghai Science and Technology Committee [09XD1402900]
  3. Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project [S30203]
  4. Shanghai Jiaotong University School of medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To explore the feasibility of using 3T high-resolution MR lymphangiography to characterize inguinal lymphatic vessel leakage (LVL). Materials and methods: Sixteen patients with known inguinal LVL underwent 3T MR lymphangiography and T-2-weighted imaging. The presence or absence of inguinal LVL and the responsible lymphatic vessels were determined using the above imaging modalities and confirmed by surgical procedure. Afterwards, fifteen patients with recurring LVL following conservative treatment were referred to surgical intervention. Results: Specific inguinal LVL enhancement patterns and leaking lymphatic vessels were detected in 15 of 16 patients. Compared to the SNR of enhanced lymph nodes, that of the enhanced LVL was significantly greater (t = 7.149, p < 0.01), thereby making it possible to differentiate between LVL sites and enhancing inguinal lymph nodes. Furthermore, the steepest contrast enhancement curve slope of enhanced LVL was lower than that of enhanced lymph nodes (t = -2.860, p = 0.02). After MR diagnosis, 15 patients successfully underwent open exploration and ligation of the leaking lymphatic vessel. Clinical follow-up did not demonstrate recurrence of lymphatic fluid in the groin. Conclusions: High-resolution MR lymphangiography combined with T-2-weighted imaging is a promising approach to identifying specific features of lymphatic vessel leakage in the groin. (C) 2011 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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