The diagnostic accuracy of 0.2 Tesla dedicated MRI in traumatology;Die diagnostische sicherheit von 0.2 Tesla dedizierten MRT niederfeldgeraten in der traumatologie

Swiss Surgery

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 175-179

  Gäbler, Christian ^a   Kukla, Ch ^a   Breitenseher, M J ^a   Vogele Th ^a   Bankier, A ^a   Rand, T ^a   Vecsei V ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Dedicated systems; Diagnostic accuracy; Image quality; Low field strength 0.2 Tesla; MRI

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; JOINT INJURY; MAGNETIC FIELD; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; TRAUMATOLOGY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT; CARPAL BONES; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; HUMANS; KNEE INJURIES; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MENISCI, TIBIAL; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WRIST INJURIES;

EID: 0031692469     PISSN: 10239332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Deutsch AL, Coel MN, Mink JH. Imaging of stress injuries to bone. Radiography, scintigraphy and MR imaging. Clin Sports Med 1997; 16:275-90.
2. Franklin PD, Lemon RA, Barden HS. Accuracy of imaging the menisci on an in-office, dedicated, magnetic resonance imaging extremity system. Am J Sports Med 1997; 25:382-8.
3. Gaebler C, Kukla C, Breitenseher M et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of occult scaphoid fractures. J Trauma 1996; 41:73-6.
4. Gaebler C, Kukla C, Breitenseher M et al. Diagnosis of lateral ankle ligament injuries: Comparison between talar tilt, MRI and operative findings in 112 athletes. Acta Orthop Scand 1997; 68:286-90
5. Harmati N, Staron RB, Barax C et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of occult fractures of the proximal femur. Skeletal Radiol 1994; 23:19-22.
6. Weinstabl R, Muellner T, Vécsei V et al. Economic considerations for the diagnosis and therapy of meniscal lesions: Can magnetic resnonance imaging help reduce the expense? World J Surg 1997; 21:363-8.
7. Bankier A, Breitenseher M, Trattnig S et al. MRT Diagnose von Läsionen am vorderen Kreuzband. Vergleich von 1.0 Tesla und 0.2 Tesla - erste Ergebnisse. Radiologe 1997; 37:807-11.
8. Breitenseher M, Trattnig S, Gäbler C et al. MRT bei radiologisch okkulten Kahnbeinfrakturen. Erste Erfahrungen von 1,0 Tesla (Ganzkorper-Mittelgerät) versus 0.2 Tesla (dediziertes Niederfeldgerät). Radiologe 1997; 37:812-8.
9. Heldman U, Thomsen HS, Mygind T. Low-field MR Imaging in patients with clinically suspected acute spinal block. Acta Radiol 1995; 36:15-8.
10. Rand T, Imhof H, Breitenseher MJ et al. Vergleich der diagnostischen Sicherheit in der Meniscusdiagnostik von MRT Untersuchungen an einem 0.2 T Niederfeldgerät und 1,5 T Hochfeldsystem. Radiologe 1997; 37:802-6.
11. Ziedses des Plantes BG. The value of MRI in a general hospital. Utrecht University of Utrecht, 1992.
12. Ziedses des Plantes BG, Koster K. Letter to the editor. Eur. J Radiol 1995; 20:156-58.
13. Masiciocchi C. Dedicated MR system and acute trauma of the musculoskeletal system. Eur J Radiol 1996; 22:7-13.
14. Ekelund L, Björnebrink J, Elmquist LG. Ultra low field magnetic resonance imaging of acute cruciate ligament tears. Magn Reson Imaging 1991; 9:179-85.
15. Orrison WW, Stimac GK, Stevens EA et al. Comparison of CT, low-field-strength MR imaging, and high-field-strength MR imaging. Radiology 1991; 181:121-7.
16. Loytsch M, Mink J, Crues JV et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of meniscal injuries. Magn Reson Imaging 1986; 4:185-9.
17. Kersting-Sommerhoff B, Gerhardt P, Golder W et al. MRT des Kniegelenkes: Erste Ergebnisse eines Vergleiches von 0.2 T- Spezialsy-stem mit 1,5 T Hochfeldmagnet. RöFo 1995; 162:390-5.
18. Kersting-Sommerhoff B, Hof N, Lenz P et al. MRI of peripheral joints with a low-field dedicated system: A reliable and cost-effective alternative to hogh-field units. Eur Radiol 1996; 6:561-5.
19. Parizel PM, Dijkstra HAJ, Geenen GPJ et al. Low-field versus high-field MR imaging of the knee: A comparison of signal behaviour and diagnostic performance. Eur J Radiol 1995; 19:132-8.
20. Minami M, Yoshikawa Y, Matsuoka Y et al. MR study of normal joint function using a low field strength system. JCAT 1991; 15:1017-23.
21. Trattnig S, Kontaxis G, Breitenseher M et al. MRT auf Niederfeld-tomographen (0.2 Tesla): Ein quantitativer Vergleich zu einem Gerät mittlerer Feldstärke (1.0 Tesla). Radiologe 1997; 37:773-7.