Posted on October 24, 2011 Updated on June 21, 2012
This entry was posted in Positioning- Upper limb.
Very informative article.Thanks Again. Will read on…
Im thankful for the blog.Much thanks again. Awesome.
Really informative blog post. Great.
forensic engineer columbia sc
Say, you got a nice article post.Really thank you! Great.
Affiliate Cash Craze Bonus
I cannot thank you enough for the article post. Much obliged.
Enjoyed every bit of your blog.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome.
annuaire federation sophrologie coaching
Thanks-a-mundo for the post. Fantastic.
access control cards
I really like and appreciate your blog.Thanks Again. Fantastic.
Thanks-a-mundo for the blog post.Thanks Again. Cool.
Convention Centers Hotels
Im obliged for the blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Great.
Major thankies for the blog.Really thank you! Really Cool.
best 7 inch tablet
Very good blog article. Want more.
MR Lymphangiography at 3.0 T: Correlation with Lymphoscintigraphy
Mike Notohamiprodjo, MD,
Mayo Weiss, MD,
Ruediger G. Baumeister, MD,
Wieland H. Sommer, MD,
Andreas Helck, MD,
Alexander Crispin, MD, MPh,
Maximilian F. Reiser, MD and
Karin A. Herrmann, MD
+ Author Affiliations
From the Department of Clinical Radiology (M.N., W.H.S., A.H., M.F.R., K.A.H.), Clinic of Nuclear Medicine (M.W.), and Division of Plastic-, Hand-, Micro-Surgery, Department of Surgery (R.G.B.), University Hospitals Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; and Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Germany (A.C.).
Address correspondence to
M.N. (e-mail: email@example.com).
Author contributions: Guarantors of integrity of entire study, M.N., M.F.R., K.A.H.; study concepts/study design or data acquisition or data analysis/interpretation, all authors; manuscript drafting or manuscript revision for important intellectual content, all authors; approval of final version of submitted manuscript, all authors; literature research, M.N., R.G.B., W.H.S.; clinical studies, M.N., M.W., R.G.B., K.A.H.; statistical analysis, M.N., W.H.S., A.H., A.C.; and manuscript editing, M.N., R.G.B., W.H.S., A.H., A.C., M.F.R.
Purpose: To prospectively compare findings of magnetic resonance (MR) lymphangiography with those of lymphoscintigraphy, evaluate the pattern and delay of lymphatic drainage, compare typical findings, and investigate discrepancies between the techniques.
Materials and Methods: This prospective study was performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committee. Thirty consecutive patients with uni- or bilateral lymphedema and lymph vessel transplants of the lower extremities were examined with 3.0-T fat-saturated three-dimensional gradient-echo MR after gadopentetate dimeglumine injection. Results of all examinations were correlated with corresponding results of lymphoscintigraphy examinations. Results of both techniques were separately reviewed in consensus by a radiologist and a nuclear physician, who rated delay and pattern of drainage, number of enhancing levels, and quality of conspicuity of the depiction of lymph nodes and lymph vessels. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by using combined results of both techniques and clinical presentation findings as reference standard. Correlation was calculated with weighted k coefficients.
Results: Weak lymphatic drainage at lymphoscintigraphy correlated with lymphangiectasia at MR lymphangiography (13 of 33 affected extremities). Lymph vessels were clearly visualized with MR lymphangiography (five of 24 affected extremities), while they were not detectable with lymphoscintigraphy. Depiction of inguinal lymph nodes was clearer with lymphoscintigraphy (five of 60 extremities). Correlation of both techniques was excellent for delay (κ = 0.93) and pattern (κ = 0.84) of drainage, good for depiction of lymph nodes (κ = 0.67) and number of enhancing levels (κ = 0.77), and moderate for depiction of lymph vessels (κ = 0.50). Sensitivity and specificity for delay and pattern of drainage were concordant, whereas MR lymphangiography showed a higher sensitivity for lymph vessel abnormalities (100% vs 79%) and lower specificity for lymph node abnormalities (78% vs 100%).
Conclusion: Imaging findings of MR lymphangiography and lymphoscintigraphy show a clear concordance. With lymphoscintigraphy, better visualization of inguinal lymph nodes was achieved, whereas with MR lymphangiography, better depiction of lymph vessels and morphologic features of lymph vessel abnormalities were achieved.
© RSNA, 2012
Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12110229/-/DC1
Received February 1, 2011; revision requested April 6; final revision received October 24; accepted November 23; final version accepted January 18, 2012.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.