Stereotactic Magnetic Resonance Angiography for Targeting in Arteriovenous Malformation Radiosurgery

Kondziolka, Douglas; Lunsford, L. Dade; Kanal, Emanuel; Talagala, Lalith

doi:10.1097/00006123-199410000-00002

Cited by 17 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We agree that biplanar stereotactic angiography has some limitations in the depiction of nidus, as Blatt et al 5 and other authors have pointed out 1,3,4 . However, we should be aware of limitation of MRA and CTA as well.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…One of the major drawbacks of these modalities is the limited ability of temporal resolution 18,19 . Distortion of images and Aoyama et al 13 some other artifacts inherent to MRA could be the result of other possible source of error as well 3,4,5,14,20 . The distortion of MRI happens by system-related and object-related causes and it can be as large as 4-5 mm at the edge of the magnetic field 14,20 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For treatment planning of intracranial arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), stereotactic angiography has been the basic source of three-dimensional (3D) information of target volume [1][2][3][4][5] . However, stereotactic angiography with the conventional biplanar technique is limited in its depiction of the 3D anatomy of AVMs 1 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because of this, a more precise 3D target shape is now required for radiosurgical planning. Gadolinium-enhanced 3D time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and computed tomographic angiography (CTA) are the imaging modalities which can provide detailed 3D information on the AVM shape [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] . However, discrepancies are frequently experienced between the target created on an MRA or CTA, and the target on stereotactic angiography 5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, discrepancies are frequently experienced between the target created on an MRA or CTA, and the target on stereotactic angiography 5 . The authors of previous publications have attributed the cause of this discrepancy to the poor depiction of AVM on biplanar stereotactic angiography 1,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] ; however, none of these publications compared the targets created only on an MRA with those created only on a stereotactic Aoyama et al 5 angiography. In this study, therefore, we compared the target created on an MRA with the target created on a stereotactic angiography, in order to investigate the possible cause of the discrepancy between these two modalities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comparison of imaging modalities for the accurate delineation of arteriovenous malformation, with reference to stereotactic radiosurgery

Aoyama

Shirato

Katoh

et al. 2005

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To investigate the discrepancy between the arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) seen on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), and seen on stereotactic digital subtracted angiography (DSA). VMRA covered less than 80% of VDSA in any dimensions in 9 cases (32%), although no significant difference was seen in the target volume between each method with a mean value of 11.9 cc for VDSA and 12.3 cc for VMRA (p=0.948). Conclusion:The shift of centers between each modality is not negligible. Considering no significant difference between VDSA and VMRA, but inadequate coverage of the VDSA by VMRA, it is reasonable to consider that the target on MRA might include the feeding artery and draining vein, and possibly miss a portion of the nidus. Aoyama et al. 3

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of imaging modalities for the accurate delineation of arteriovenous malformation, with reference to stereotactic radiosurgery

Aoyama

Shirato

Katoh

et al. 2005

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Rule Out (R/O) Arteriovenous Malformation

Conrad

Thibodeau

Grant

2005

CP Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When imaging patients for intracranial arteriovenous malformations, the goals are: (1) to determine if an arteriovenous malformation is present; (2) to assess size, shape, and location of the nidus; (3) to determine potential arterial feeders and venous drainage routes (including screening for aneurysms on arterial feeders); and (4) to determine the state of the surrounding brain parenchyma, including the identification of intracranial hemorrhage. A post‐contrast 3‐D spoiled gradient echo (SPGR) sequence is used for sequences 1 to 3. Standard MR imaging sequences are used to evaluate the brain parenchyma. The protocol contained within this unit can be used for the evaluation of stable patients. In order to perform the optional sequences with perfusion and diffusion studies, a scanner with echoplanar capabilities is required; however, the standard anatomical MR imaging sequences included in the protocols do not require these faster gradients.

show abstract