Gadoxate-Enhanced T 1-Weighted MR Cholangiography: Comparison of 1.5 T and 3.0 T Gadoxate-verstärkte T 1-gewichtete MR-Cholangiografie: Vergleich von 1,5 T und 3,0 T

RoFo Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Rontgenstrahlen und der Bildgebenden Verfahren

Volumn 181, Issue 6, 2022, Pages 587-592

  Koelblinger, C ^a   Schima, W ^a   Weber, M ^a   Mang, T ^a   Nemec, S ^a   Kulinna Cosentini, C ^a   Bastati, N ^a   Ba Ssalamah, A ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

3.0 T; biliary system; field strength; Gadoxate; MR cholangiography; T1

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BILE DUCT; CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMMON BILE DUCT; COMMON HEPATIC DUCT; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; EXTRAHEPATIC BILE DUCT; FEMALE; HEPATOBILIARY SYSTEM; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAVENOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; MALE; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIOLOGIST; RANK SUM TEST; RATING SCALE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; VISIBILITY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; LIVER DISEASE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; GADOLINIUM ETHOXYBENZYL DTPA; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE;

CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, MAGNETIC RESONANCE; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; GADOLINIUM DTPA; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; LIVER DISEASES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 66949157207     PISSN: 14389029     EISSN: 14389010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1109141     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Pavone P, Laghi A, Panebianco V et al. MR cholangiography: techniques and clinical applications. Eur Radiol 1998; 8: 901–910
2. Barish MA, Yucel EK, Ferrucci JT. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 258–264
3. Wallner BK, Schuhmacher KA, Weidenmaier W et al. Dilated biliary tract: evaluation with MR cholangiography with a T2-weighted contrast-enhanced fast sequence. Radiology 1991; 181: 805–808
4. Lee VS, Krinsky GA, Nazarro CA et al. Defining intrahepatic biliary anatomy in living liver transplant donor candidates at mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR cholangiography versus conventional T2-weighted MR cholangiography. Radiology 2004; 233: 659–666
5. Goldman J, Florman S, Varotti G et al. Noninvasive preoperative evaluation of biliary anatomy in right-lobe living donors with mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR cholangiography. Transplant Proc 2003; 35: 1421–1422
6. Carlos RC, Hussain HK, Song JH et al. Gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid as an intrabiliary contrast agent: preliminary assessment. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 87–92
7. Vitellas KM, El-Dieb A, Vaswani KK et al. Using contrast-enhanced MR cholangiography with IV mangafodipir trisodium (Teslascan) to evaluate bile duct leaks after cholecystectomy: a prospective study of 11 patients. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 409–416
8. Bollow M, Taupitz M, Hamm B et al. Gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-DTPA as a hepatobiliary contrast agent for use in MR cholangiography: results of an in vivo phase-I clinical evaluation. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 126–132
9. Papanikolaou N, Prassopoulus P, Eracleous E et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography versus heavily T 2-weighted magnetic resonance cholangiography. Invest Radiol 2001; 36: 682–686
10. Holzapfel K, Breitwieser C, Prinz C et al. Kontrastverstärkte MR-Cholangiographie mit Gadolinium-EOB-DTPA. Erste Erfahrungen und klinische Einsatzmöglichkeiten. Radiologe 2007; 47: 536–44
11. Catalano OA, Singh AH, Uppot RN et al. Vascular and biliary variants in the liver: implications for liver surgery. Radiographics 2008; 28: 359–378
12. Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL et al. Biliary complications after hepatic resection: risk factors, management, and outcome. Arch Surg 1998; 133: 156–161
13. Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Daldrup HE et al. Enhancement characteristics of liver metastases, hepatocellular carcinomas, and hemangiomas with Gd-EOB-DTPA: preliminary results with dynamic MR imaging. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 275–280
14. Vogl TJ, Kummel S, Hammerstingl R et al. Liver tumors: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Radiology 1996; 200: 59–67
15. Dahlstrom N, Persson A, Albiin N et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography with Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA in healthy subjects. Acta Radiol 2007; 48: 362–368
16. Yeh BM, Breiman RS, Taouli B et al. Biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors: comparison of conventional MR, mangafodipir trisodiu-enhanced excretory MR, and multi-detector row CT cholangiography – initial experience. Radiology 2004; 230: 645–651
17. Merkle EM, Haugan PA, Thomas J et al. 3.0- versus 1.5-T MR cholangiography: a pilot study. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 516–521
18. O’Regan DP, Fitzgerald J, Allsop J et al. A comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Br J Radiol 2005; 78: 894–898
19. Murakami T, Baron RL, Federle MP et al. Cirrhosis of the liver: MR imaging with mangafodipir trisodium (Mn-DPDP). Radiology 1996; 198: 567–572
20. Tschirch FT, Struwe A, Petrowsky H et al. Contrast-enhanced MR cholangiography with Gd-EOB-DTPA in patients with liver cirrhosis: visualization of the biliary ducts in comparison with patients with normal liver parenchyma. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1577–1586
21. de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM et al. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 2004; 230: 652–659
22. Regier M, Nolte-Ersting C, Adam G et al. Intraindividueller Vergleich der Bildqualität in der MR-Urographie bei 1,5 und 3 Tesla am Tiermodell. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2008; Sep 8: Epub ahead of print
23. Reimer P, Schneider G, Schima W. Hepatobiliary contrast agents for contrast-enhanced MRI of the liver: properties, clinical development and applications. Eur Radiol 2004; 14: 559–578
24. Schindera ST, Miller EM, Ho LM et al. Magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiography: quantitative and qualitative comparison of 3.0 Tesla with 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2007; 42: 399–405
25. Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB et al. Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26: 375–385