Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced 3 T magnetic resonance portovenography in children with extra hepatic portal venous obstruction
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced 3 T magnetic resonance portovenography in children with extra hepatic portal venous obstruction
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced 3 T magnetic resonance portovenography in children with extra hepatic portal venous obstruction
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced 3 T magnetic resonance portovenography in children with extra hepatic portal venous obstruction
2021
Overview
PurposeTo evaluate role of 3-T magnetic resonance portovenography (MRPV) in children with extra hepatic portal venous obstruction (EHPVO) and compare unenhanced and contrast-enhanced sequences.Methods20 Children with EHPVO underwent MRPV using unenhanced [T2, T1 pre-contrast, Balanced turbo field echo (BTFE)] and contrast-enhanced (CE) modified DIXON (mDIXON) sequences. The images were evaluated for the patency of abdominal veins, hepatic and splenic parenchyma by two radiologists for interobserver agreement.ResultsBTFE and post-contrast mDIXON sequences performed best for evaluation of abdominal veins. Concordance between the BTFE and CE sequences was good to very good for both the radiologists for splenic vein (SV) evaluation. The concordance between the two sequences for evaluation of superior mesenteric vein and its confluence with the SV was less remarkable and varied from fair to good, while the interobserver agreement was very good to perfect. The interobserver agreement between the BTFE and CE sequence for the evaluation of left renal vein was very good, while that for IVC was perfect. The agreement between BTFE and CE sequence was perfect for the evaluation of right and middle hepatic veins, while the interobserver agreement was good to perfect. The interobserver agreement was poor for evaluation of hepatic parenchyma on BTFE sequence as compared to CE sequence, and moderate for splenic parenchyma.ConclusionBTFE sequence is the single best unenhanced MR pulse sequence to detect all the vascular structures in children with EHPVO. CE-MRI is not superior to BTFE sequence and should be used at the discretion of the radiologist.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
