• 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,

. 2011 ; 128 (4) : 883-91.

Language English Country United States

Document type Comparative Study, Evaluation Study, Journal Article

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

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...