Ultraschnelle Pelvimetrie mittels Snapshot-FLASH-MRT - Vergleich mit der Spinecho- und FLASH-Technik

Urhahn, R; Lehnen, H; Drobnitzky, Matthias; Kc, Klose; Rw, Günther

doi:10.1055/s-2008-1033291

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dies ist nicht der Fall, sondern die Ergebni sse der versc hiedenen Sequ enztypen des jeweiligen Unters uche rs liegen relativ nah e beieinander. Insofern dürfte die ultraschn elle Bildgebung zukünftig, vor allem aufgrund der geringe n HF-Belastung, zur MR-pelvimetrischen Meth ode der Wahl werden (26). Die Technik dürfte au ch dazu geeign et sein'; ohn e groß en Aufwand Datensätze zu gewinnen , mit deren Hilfe sich der Geburtsvorgang simuli eren läßt, wie dies kürzlich beschri eben wurde (6).…”

Section: Sicherheit Sparameterunclassified

Pelvimetrie mittels verschiedener kernspintomographischer Techniken vs. digitale Bildverstärkerradiographie: Genauigkeit, Zeitbedarf und Energiebelastung

Wentz¹,

Lehmann²,

Wischnik³

et al. 1994

Geburtsh Frauenheilk

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 50 patients with suspected or proven cephalo-pelvine disproportion pelvimetry was performed with MR-tomography using a gradient-echo-sequence (FLASH 2D) before or after labour. Results were compared with measurements using digital radiography. In principle, both methods are exchangeable. The sagittal pelvic in- and outlet bispinous diameters are well reproducible. On the other hand, the transverse pelvic inlet and the distance between the ischiatic tubera are not so reliably reproduced. The accuracy of measurement does not depend on individual pelvic distances. Critical statistical analysis demonstrates, that in the worst case differences between the two methods might become unacceptable. Our results indicate two major reasons: 1. there are interobserver problems which cannot be neglected, and 2. the anatomical definition of referential landmarks for the measurements is unsafe. In 10 volunteers, a comparison was made between a T1-weighted spin-echo sequence (SE), a fast gradient echo sequence (FLASH-2D) and an ultrafast gradient echo technique (Turbo-FLASH). For the examination techniques presented here, the high-frequency exposure load or specific absorption rate (SAR loc and SAR total) is below the values permitted by the German Federal Health Bureau (Bundesgesundheitsamt). Whereas the exposure load in case of spin-echo takes (SE) is 22fold higher than with the gradient echo technique (GHE), the load values of ultra-fast GE (usGE) are only about 16% of the 2D-FLASH sequence or about 0.007% of SE. The difference in image quality does not affect the accuracy of measurement.

show abstract

Section: Sicherheit Sparameterunclassified