-
Something wrong with this record ?
Preoperative vascular mapping for facial allotransplantation: four-dimensional computed tomographic angiography versus magnetic resonance angiography
S. Soga, B. Pomahac, D. Mitsouras, K. Kumamaru, SL. Powers, RF. Prior, J. Signorelli, EM. Bueno, ML. Steigner, FJ. Rybicki,
Language English Country United States
Document type Comparative Study, Evaluation Study, Journal Article
- MeSH
- Surgical Flaps blood supply MeSH
- Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography methods MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Transplantation, Homologous MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Magnetic Resonance Angiography methods MeSH
- Statistics, Nonparametric MeSH
- Face blood supply surgery MeSH
- Observer Variation MeSH
- Preoperative Care methods MeSH
- Retrospective Studies MeSH
- Sensitivity and Specificity MeSH
- Sampling Studies MeSH
- Plastic Surgery Procedures methods MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Evaluation Study MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
BACKGROUND: Facial allotransplantation requires a detailed arterial and venous assessment for surgical planning. Target vessels are often depleted by multiple reconstructive attempts or the severe facial injury itself. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare the diagnostic performance of computed tomography and magnetic resonance angiography in the preoperative assessment. METHODS: Four-dimensional (three spatial planes plus time) computed tomographic and magnetic resonance images including 126 potential vessels (76 arteries and 50 veins) from five candidates were analyzed independently by two radiologists using a four-point image quality scale. Computed tomographic versus magnetic resonance image quality was compared directly, using a computed tomographic angiography consensus read as reference standard. Vessels with metal artifact on magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, or both underwent separate analyses to determine the impact of metal implants on image quality. RESULTS: Considering all 126 vessels, the mean computed tomographic image quality was superior to that of magnetic resonance angiography. When considering individual vessels, all except for major neck vessels were better visualized by computed tomography. Images of 26 vessels were degraded by metal artifact; magnetic resonance image quality was inferior for those vessels. Considering images of major vessels with no metal artifact, there was no significant mean image quality difference between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomographic angiography should be used as the first-choice modality for preoperative imaging of facial transplant patients because, when compared with magnetic resonance imaging, the visualization of small vessels is far superior and images have fewer artifacts. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, II.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc15012613
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20151022104000.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 150409s2011 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182268b43 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)21921764
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Soga, Shigeyoshi $u Applied Imaging Science Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
- 245 10
- $a Preoperative vascular mapping for facial allotransplantation: four-dimensional computed tomographic angiography versus magnetic resonance angiography / $c S. Soga, B. Pomahac, D. Mitsouras, K. Kumamaru, SL. Powers, RF. Prior, J. Signorelli, EM. Bueno, ML. Steigner, FJ. Rybicki,
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: Facial allotransplantation requires a detailed arterial and venous assessment for surgical planning. Target vessels are often depleted by multiple reconstructive attempts or the severe facial injury itself. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare the diagnostic performance of computed tomography and magnetic resonance angiography in the preoperative assessment. METHODS: Four-dimensional (three spatial planes plus time) computed tomographic and magnetic resonance images including 126 potential vessels (76 arteries and 50 veins) from five candidates were analyzed independently by two radiologists using a four-point image quality scale. Computed tomographic versus magnetic resonance image quality was compared directly, using a computed tomographic angiography consensus read as reference standard. Vessels with metal artifact on magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, or both underwent separate analyses to determine the impact of metal implants on image quality. RESULTS: Considering all 126 vessels, the mean computed tomographic image quality was superior to that of magnetic resonance angiography. When considering individual vessels, all except for major neck vessels were better visualized by computed tomography. Images of 26 vessels were degraded by metal artifact; magnetic resonance image quality was inferior for those vessels. Considering images of major vessels with no metal artifact, there was no significant mean image quality difference between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomographic angiography should be used as the first-choice modality for preoperative imaging of facial transplant patients because, when compared with magnetic resonance imaging, the visualization of small vessels is far superior and images have fewer artifacts. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, II.
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a obličej $x krevní zásobení $x chirurgie $7 D005145
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a čtyřrozměrná počítačová tomografie $x metody $7 D056973
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a magnetická rezonanční angiografie $x metody $7 D018810
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a odchylka pozorovatele $7 D015588
- 650 _2
- $a předoperační péče $x metody $7 D011300
- 650 _2
- $a zákroky plastické chirurgie $x metody $7 D019651
- 650 _2
- $a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
- 650 _2
- $a vzorkové studie $7 D012494
- 650 _2
- $a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
- 650 _2
- $a neparametrická statistika $7 D018709
- 650 _2
- $a chirurgické laloky $x krevní zásobení $7 D013524
- 650 _2
- $a homologní transplantace $7 D014184
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a hodnotící studie $7 D023362
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Pomahač, Bohdan, $d 1971- $7 xx0117402
- 700 1_
- $a Mitsouras, Dimitrios
- 700 1_
- $a Kumamaru, Kanako
- 700 1_
- $a Powers, Sara L
- 700 1_
- $a Prior, Richard F
- 700 1_
- $a Signorelli, Jason
- 700 1_
- $a Bueno, Ericka M
- 700 1_
- $a Steigner, Michael L
- 700 1_
- $a Rybicki, Frank J
- 773 0_
- $w MED00010436 $t Plastic and reconstructive surgery $x 1529-4242 $g Roč. 128, č. 4 (2011), s. 883-91
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21921764 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20150409 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20151022104155 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1070784 $s 895472
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2011 $b 128 $c 4 $d 883-91 $i 1529-4242 $m Plastic and reconstructive surgery $n Plast Reconstr Surg $x MED00010436
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20150409