Background/Aims:In the present study, dural venous sinuses and cerebral veins were examined using 3D SPGR MRV and 2D TOF MRV. These methods were compared in terms of detectability of venous structures and their diameters.
Methods:A total of 110 patients(66 female and 44 male) who had contrast-enhanced 3D SPGR MRV and 2D TOF MRV examinations using a 1.5 T MRI machine in May 2008-June 2011 period were included in the present study. Diameters of dural venous sinuses and veins were measured at three different planes at a position 1cm distal to the site they drained into, and average values were used. Both MRV methods were compared to reveal whether the diameters calculated were different in age groups and between genders.
Results:SSS, bilateral TS’s, right sigmoid sinus, Galen vein and bilateral ICV’s all could be determined using 3D SPGR MRV. Not all dural venous sinuses and veins other than right sigmoid sinus could be visualized in all patients using 2D TOF MRV.There were significant differences between the two examinations for SSS and ISS, bilateral TS and sigmoid sinuses, SS, bilateral Labbe and ICV and Galen vein diameters(p<0.05) Diameters of dural venous sinuses and cortical veins were generally measured larger by 3D SPGR MRV compared to 2D TOF MRV.
Conclusions:In conclusion, differences could be observed between the two MRV examinations for detectability and diameters of intracranial venous structures. Evaluation of intracranial venous structures should not be carried out using only 2D TOF MRV.
|Konular||Sağlık Bilimleri ve Hizmetleri|
Yayımlanma Tarihi : 30 Eylül 2019
|EndNote||%0 Journal of Contemporary Medicine Comparative evaluation of dural venous sinuses and cerebral veins using contrast-enhanced spoiled gradient recalled echo and time-of-flight magnetic resonance venography %A Caglar Deniz , Erkan Gokce , Berat Acu , Yunus emre Kuyucu %T Comparative evaluation of dural venous sinuses and cerebral veins using contrast-enhanced spoiled gradient recalled echo and time-of-flight magnetic resonance venography %D 2019 %J Journal of Contemporary Medicine %P -2667-7180 %V 9 %N 3 %R doi: 10.16899/jcm.556044 %U 10.16899/jcm.556044|