Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography of 8 aortic stent-graft models

Journal of Endovascular Therapy

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 627-634

  Gawenda, Michael ^a,b   Gossmann, Axel ^a   Krüger, Karsten ^a   Zaehringer, Markus ^a   Hahn, Moritz ^a   Wassmer, Gernot ^a   Brunkwall, Jan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Artifacts; Computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Stent graft; Surveillance

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL RADIOGRAPHY; AORTA GRAFT; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ENDOLEAK; ENDOPROSTHESIS; FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; SURGEON;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AORTIC ANEURYSM, ABDOMINAL; ARTIFACTS; BLOOD VESSEL PROSTHESIS; BLOOD VESSEL PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; PROBABILITY; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STENTS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 12144277427     PISSN: 15266028     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1583/03-1130MR.1     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Rozenblit A, Marin ML, Veith FJ, et al. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: value of postoperative follow-up with helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:1473-1479.
2. Blum U, Voshage G, Lammer J, et al. Endoluminal stent-grafts for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:13-20.
3. Czermak BV, Waldenberger P, Fraedrich G, et al. Treatment of Stanford type B aortic dissection with stent-grafts: preliminary results. Radiology. 2000;217:544-50.
4. Arlart IP, Gerlach A, Kolb M, et al. MR angiography using Gd-DTPA in staging of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a correlation with DSA and CT [in German]. Rofo. 1997;167:257-263.
5. Thurnher SA, Dorffner R, Thurnher MM, et al. Evaluation of abdominal aortic aneurysm for stent-graft placement: comparison of gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography versus helical CT angiography and digital subtraction angiography. Radiology. 1997;205:341-352.
6. Ludman CN, Yusuf SW, Whitaker SC, et al. Feasibility of using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography as the sole imaging modality prior to endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2000;19:524-530.
7. Neschis DG, Velazquez OC, Baum RA, et al. The role of magnetic resonance angiography for endoprosthetic design. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:488-494.
8. Hilfiker PR, Quick HH, Debatin JF. Plain and covered stent-grafts: in vitro evaluation of characteristics at three-dimensional MR angiography. Radiology. 1999;211:693-697.
9. Lenhart M, Volk M, Manke C, et al. Stent appearance at contrast-enhanced MR angiography: in vitro examination with 14 stents. Radiology. 2000;217:173-178.
10. Maintz D, Kugel H, Schellhammer F, et al. In vitro evaluation of intravascular stent artifacts in three-dimensional MR angiography. Invest Radiol. 2001;36:218-224.
11. Engellau L, Larsson EM, Albrechtsson U, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and MR angiography of endoluminally treated abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1998;15:212-219.
12. Hilfiker PR, Quick HH, Pfammatter T, et al. Three-dimensional MR angiography of a nitinol-based abdominal aortic stent graft: assessment of heating and imaging characteristics. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:1775-1780.
13. Engellau L, Olsrud J, Brockstedt S, et al. MR evaluation ex vivo and in vivo of a covered stent-graft for abdominal aortic aneurysms: ferromagnetism, heating, artifacts, and velocity mapping. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12:112-121.
14. Cejna M, Loewe C, Schoder M, et al. MR angiography vs CT angiography in the follow-up of nitinol stent grafts in endoluminally treated aortic aneurysms. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2443-2450.
15. Merkle EM, Klein S, Wisianowsky C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus multislice computed tomography of thoracic aortic endografts. J Endovasc Ther. 2002;9(suppl II):II-2-II14.
16. Prince MR, Yucel EK, Kaufman JA, et al. Dynamic gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional abdominal MR arteriography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;3:877-881.
17. Leung DA, McKinnon GC, Davis CP, et al. Breath-hold, contrast-enhanced, three-dimensional MR angiography. Radiology. 1996;200:569-571.
18. Hany TF, Debatin JF, Leung DA, et al. Evaluation of the aortoiliac and renal arteries: comparison of breath-hold, contrast-enhanced, three-dimensional MR angiography with conventional catheter angiography. Radiology. 1997;204:357-362.
19. Murphy KJ, Brunberg JA, Cohan RH. Adverse reactions to gadolinium contrast media: a review of 36 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:847-849.
20. Nelson KL, Gifford LM, Lauber-Huber C, et al. Clinical safety of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology. 1995;196:439-443.
21. Niendorf HP, Haustein J, Cornelius I, et al. Safety of gadolinium-DTPA: extended clinical experience. Magn Reson Med. 1991;22:222-232.
22. Keeler EK, Casey FX, Engels H, et al. Accessory equipment considerations with respect to MRI compatibility. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;8:12-18.
23. Laissy JP, Grand C, Matos C, et al. Magnetic resonance angiography of intravascular endoprostheses: investigation of three devices. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1995;18:360-366.
24. Lobato AC, Quick RC, Vaughn PL, et al. Transrenal fixation of aortic endografts: intermediate follow-up of a single-center experience. J Endovasc Ther. 2000;7:273-278.
25. Gawenda M. Is the prophylactic stenting of renal artery stenosis mandatory before endovascular aneurysm repair? [Abstract] Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;111(suppl 2):180.