ライフサイエンスコーパス: arthrography

1 inistration of gadopentetate dimeglumine (MR arthrography).

2 MR) imaging (MR arthrography and traction MR arthrography).

3 r (ie, double-contrast multi-detector row CT arthrography).

4 c hands were obtained after tricompartmental arthrography.

5 demonstrated at both conventional MR and MR arthrography.

6 xed positions were obtained before and after arthrography.

7 entional MR imaging versus 0.364-1.00 for MR arthrography.

8 ntional MR imaging versus 83.3%-100% with MR arthrography.

9 tional MR imaging versus 50.0%-93.3% with MR arthrography.

10 red with those of MR imaging and indirect MR arthrography.

11 %) in whom SLAP lesions were diagnosed at MR arthrography.

12 or open surgery 12 days to 5 months after MR arthrography.

13 findings were correlated with those from MR arthrography.

14 al arthrography, standard MR imaging, and MR arthrography.

15 oscaphocapitate ligament can be diagnosed at arthrography.

16 section, radiography, and magnetic resonance arthrography.

17 n be seen as a filling defect at radiocarpal arthrography.

18 can be visualized during routine radiocarpal arthrography.

19 Each cadaveric wrist was examined at arthrography.

20 (P < .001) to that of gadolinium-enhanced MR arthrography.

21 al elbow pain underwent US in addition to MR arthrography.

22 .1 years) without HS abnormalities at hip MR arthrography.

23 phy, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and MR arthrography.

24 ositions, monitor injections, and perform MR arthrography.

25 as well as one that was not visualized at MR arthrography.

26 magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and 1.5-T MR arthrography.

27 aluation with 3.0-T MR imaging over 1.5-T MR arthrography.

28 than 25% meniscal resection did not need MR arthrography.

29 injuries, or avascular necrosis required MR arthrography.

30 ll patients with meniscal repair required MR arthrography.

31 en as a hypointense linear structure with MR arthrography.

32 .68 and 0.69; GRE imaging, 0.56 and 0.68; MR arthrography, 0.84 and 0.85; and intermediate-weighted i

33 < .01) better than MR imaging (57%-70%), CT arthrography (80%), and CT (74%).

34 ined with nonenhanced MR imaging and with MR arthrography after intraarticular injection of dilute co

35 MR arthrography allows delineation of perforations of the i

36 MR imaging and/or MR arthrography allows visualization of all anatomic struct

37 MR arthrography allows visualization of the carpal ligament

38 rom 74%, 92%, and 88%, respectively, with MR arthrography alone to 90% (P = .07, McNemar test), 100%

39 nsitivity, specificity, and accuracy with MR arthrography alone were 93%, 93%, and 93%, and 94%, 98%,

40 were evaluated at MR imaging (41 indirect MR arthrography and 45 unenhanced MR imaging examinations).

41 or fiber discontinuity, as documented by MR arthrography and anatomic slices.

42 hologic conditions that were diagnosed at MR arthrography and helped identify one additional surgical

43 orthopedic surgeon performed intraoperative arthrography and measured passive external rotation whil

44 ce in sensitivity and specificity between CT arthrography and MR arthrography in depiction of rotator

45 for labral disease were examined at both MR arthrography and MR imaging.

46 rotator cuff tear, whereas both indirect MR arthrography and nonenhanced MR imaging had 83% accuracy

47 ent labral tear detection, whereas direct MR arthrography and nonenhanced MR imaging had accuracies o

48 distinguished, including magnetic resonance arthrography and the value of specialized imaging positi

49 phy, and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MR arthrography and traction MR arthrography).

50 o significant difference between indirect MR arthrography and unenhanced MR imaging (P =.592 and P =.

51 onclusion The combined approach with both MR arthrography and US shows higher accuracy than each moda

52 surements obtained by using multidetector CT arthrography and yielded data pertinent to choosing the

53 ging (MR imaging, and direct and indirect MR arthrography) and SLAP tears.

54 CT arthrography; kappa = 0.641-0.893 for MR arthrography), and intertechnique agreement was almost p

55 Each participant underwent radiography, CT arthrography, and 4D CT on the same day.

56 Standard arthrography, MR arthrography, and anatomic slices demonstrated the ulnar

57 d-strength MR imaging, low-field-strength MR arthrography, and high-field-strength MR arthrography wa

58 will other modalities such as US, CT and CT arthrography, and nuclear medicine techniques that play

59 diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging, direct MR arthrography, and/or indirect MR arthrography for the de

60 In this preliminary study, MR arthrography appears to be a promising imaging modality

61 Conclusion Direct MR arthrography appears to be more accurate than nonenhance

62 with multidetector computed tomographic (CT) arthrography, as a function of contrast agent concentrat

63 rmed labral tears that were identified at MR arthrography, as well as one that was not visualized at

64 femoral epicondyle was investigated with MR arthrography at full extension and at 30 degrees and 60

65 MR arthrography better demonstrated the sublabral recess th

66 tion, and tendon analysis, with potential in arthrography, bone densitometry, and metastases surveill

67 CT and MR arthrography both yielded moderate interobserver and int

68 demonstrated superior accuracy of direct MR arthrography compared with those of MR imaging and indir

69 Routine radiography, arthrography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic res

70 the multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) arthrography (CTa) and magnetic resonance (MR) arthrogra

71 MR arthrography demonstrated a triad of abnormal head-neck

72 MR arthrography depicted best the intraarticular disk and f

73 MR arthrography does not have a significant advantage over

74 r anesthetics to gadolinium solutions for MR arthrography does not substantially impact signal intens

75 80 patients who underwent arthroscopy and MR arthrography during a 54-month period were retrospective

76 Conventional MR imaging and MR arthrography enable accurate visualization of the import

77 MR imaging and MR arthrography enable the diagnosis of simulated MCP joint

78 MR arthrography enabled identification of the bare areas an

79 MR arthrography enables visualization of the capsular ligam

80 MR arthrography enhances visualization of the intraarticula

81 ng 3524 imaging examinations: 1963 direct MR arthrography examinations (23 studies), 1402 MR examinat

82 aminations (14 studies), and 159 indirect MR arthrography examinations (three studies).

83 5-T magnet and then by using double-contrast arthrography followed by CT with a four-detector row sca

84 Double-contrast arthrography followed by multi-detector row CT, as compa

85 open-magnet configuration was comparable to arthrography for demonstration of femoral head containme

86 anced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR arthrography for diagnosis of superior labrum anterior-t

87 MR imging correlated well with arthrography for overall subjective assessment of severi

88 MR arthrography, MR imaging, and indirect MR arthrography for SLAP tear diagnosis were 80.4%, 63.0%,

89 , direct MR arthrography, and/or indirect MR arthrography for the detection of SLAP tears, by using s

90 Indirect MR arthrography had 100% accuracy for recurrent labral tear

91 Direct MR arthrography had 100% accuracy in depicting rotator cuff

92 MR arthrography had a sensitivity of 89% (17 of 19 patients

93 Three-compartment arthrography has been advocated in the current literatur

94 Exercise with direct shoulder MR arthrography has no beneficial or detrimental effect on

95 Data suggest that CT and MR arthrography have similar diagnostic performance for the

96 ontrast material-enhanced radiography (i.e., arthrography) helped delineate communication between the

97 Compared with standard MR imaging, only MR arthrography helps improve visualization of the fibrous

98 As is done in shoulder arthrography, however, the needle tip can be positioned

99 motion artifacts associated with MR shoulder arthrography; however, total MR imaging time is not redu

100 fluid and performance of saline-enhanced MR arthrography improve detectability of intraarticular bod

101 MR arthrography improved the visualization of all articular

102 MR arthrography improves visualization of findings of osteo

103 algus stress US) and magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography in baseball players with medial elbow pain.

104 d specificity between CT arthrography and MR arthrography in depiction of rotator cuff lesions.

105 MR guidance for successful shoulder and hip arthrography in human cadavers.

106 MR imaging, indirect MR arthrography in particular, appears to be an accurate me

107 T1-weighted spin-echo MR imaging and MR arthrography in standard imaging planes and a coronal ob

108 MR imaging correlated poorly with arthrography in the measurement of sphericity of the fem

109 MR imaging correlated well with arthrography in the objective evaluation of joint fluid

110 MR arthrography is a useful and accurate technique in the d

111 MR arthrography is accurate in the detection of pulley lesi

112 In evaluating the shoulder, MR arthrography is becoming the preoperative imaging proced

113 Magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography is considered the reference standard in ima

114 MR arthrography is the best imaging technique for detection

115 CT arthrography is the second most accurate method.

116 as a baseline for future studies in which MR arthrography is used to characterize wrist instability.

117 MR-arthrography is useful in the evaluation of superior sho

118 imaging (kappa = 0.36), and moderate with MR arthrography (kappa = 0.46), intermediate-weighted fast

119 o almost perfect (kappa = 0.744-0.964 for CT arthrography; kappa = 0.641-0.893 for MR arthrography),

120 of tear, diagnostic accuracy of conventional arthrography, low-field-strength MR imaging, high-field-

121 onography (US), computed tomography (CT), CT arthrography, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and MR ar

122 of magnetic resonance-guided direct shoulder arthrography (MDSA), to evaluate the diagnostic value of

123 Standard arthrography, MR arthrography, and anatomic slices demon

124 pecimens were subsequently evaluated with MR arthrography, MR bursography, or both examinations.

125 Mean sensitivities of direct MR arthrography, MR imaging, and indirect MR arthrography f

126 Mean specificities of direct MR arthrography, MR imaging, and indirect MR arthrography w

127 thrography (CTa) and magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography (MRa) findings with surgical findings in pa

128 Direct magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) offers increased diagnostic accuracy

129 Conventional arthrography of the anterior and posterior subtalar join

130 Gadolinium-enhanced MR arthrography of the elbow seems to be a promising techni

131 Although MR arthrography of the glenohumeral joint clearly delineate

132 nts) underwent 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography of the hip 1 year after arthroscopic treatm

133 MR arthrography of the hip was performed in 10 patients who

134 MR arthrography of the shoulder is reliable and accurate fo

135 From January 1995 to June 1998, MR arthrography of the shoulder was performed in 159 patien

136 Direct, intraarticular, gadolinium arthrography of the shoulder was performed in 41 patient

137 MR arthrography of the shoulder with patients in the ABER p

138 Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR arthrography of the wrist were performed with the wrist

139 Conventional computed tomography (CT), CT arthrography, or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was per

140 Magnetic resonance arthrography, owing to its superior depiction of ligamen

141 ce was observed for MR imaging and direct MR arthrography (P < .001) studies for both mean sensitivit

142 nt improvement in sensitivity at indirect MR arthrography (P =.017) and no significant difference in

143 o significant difference between indirect MR arthrography (P =.666) and unenhanced MR imaging (P =.55

144 Efficiency was assessed according to arthrography procedural time.

145 we propose a new technique to streamline the arthrography procedure.

146 Forty-five arthrography procedures (23 shoulders, 22 hips) were per

147 Currently, Magnetic Resonance arthrography procedures require two rooms and two imagin

148 sure to ionizing radiation and to streamline arthrography procedures that are conducted solely under

149 vel MRI-safe Needle Guidance Toolkit for MRI arthrography procedures, achieving an average targeting

150 r novel MRI-safe needle guidance toolkit for arthrography procedures.

151 r specificity (P < .001) than the routine MR arthrography protocol for depicting cartilage lesions.

152 ional images, the latter from the routine MR arthrography protocol, were evaluated at separate sittin

153 0% and 84%, respectively, for the routine MR arthrography protocol.

154 ding cartilage lesions than did a routine MR arthrography protocol; the lower specificity of IDEAL-SP

155 Of the tested methods, MR arthrography proved to be the most sensitive to the diag

156 MR arthrography provides pertinent preoperative information

157 For observers 1, 2, and 3, respectively: MR arthrography showed a sensitivity of 89%, 86%, and 82% a

158 imaging with high spatial resolution and MR arthrography showed the greatest overall ability to enab

159 Indirect MR arthrography significantly improves sensitivity in the e

160 ial imaging work-up using radiography and CT arthrography sometimes can be insufficient to identify a

161 ction stress were examined with conventional arthrography, standard MR imaging, and MR arthrography.

162 hat compared MR imaging studies to direct MR arthrography studies and indirect MR arthrography studie

163 rect MR arthrography studies and indirect MR arthrography studies, 3-T studies to 1.5-T studies, and

164 ias MR imaging studies to low-bias direct MR arthrography studies.

165 ginous surfaces were better visualized at MR arthrography than at MR imaging.

166 With MR arthrography, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy

167 , intraarticular injection rate (P>.99), and arthrography time (P=.22).

168 The average arthrography time was 14 minutes (range, 6-27 minutes; 1

169 o use magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR arthrography to characterize the normal anatomy of the t

170 an 25% meniscal resection (n = 23) needed MR arthrography to demonstrate a residual or recurrent meni

171 h more than 25% meniscal resection needed MR arthrography to demonstrate a residual or recurrent meni

172 der magnetic resonance examination including arthrography to detect SLAP lesions.

173 ents with meniscal repair (n = 16) needed MR arthrography to diagnose a residual or recurrent menisca

174 MR arthrography, and high-field-strength MR arthrography was 83%, 89%, 90%, 94%, and 100%, respectiv

175 nal diagnostic 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography was augmented by including a multiecho grad

176 five cadaveric ankles, multi-detector row CT arthrography was more accurate than 3D FS-SPGR MR imagin

177 Direct MR arthrography was more sensitive, 100% versus 71%, but le

178 MR arthrography was performed in four specimens (eight join

179 Additional MR arthrography was performed in four specimens by using th

180 Subsequently, gadolinium-enhanced arthrography was performed in three specimens followed b

181 MR arthrography was performed in two phases with saline and

182 Accuracy of CT arthrography was significantly better than that of MR im

183 Accuracy of saline-enhanced MR arthrography was significantly inferior (P < .001) to th

184 Direct hip MR arthrographies were selected from 100 symptomatic patien

185 MR arthrography, MR imaging, and indirect MR arthrography were 90.7%, 87.2%, and 66.5%, respectively.

186 respective sensitivity and specificity of CT arthrography were 92% and 93%-97% for the supraspinatus,

187 respective sensitivity and specificity of MR arthrography were 96% and 83%-93% for the supraspinatus,

188 ity ratings at standard MR imaging and at MR arthrography were calculated.

189 Sensitivity and specificity of CT and MR arthrography were compared by using the McNemar test.

190 multipositional MR imaging and conventional arthrography were compared in the assessment of containm

191 Findings at MR arthrography were compared with those from arthroscopy i

192 CT and CT arthrography were performed in the transaxial plane.

193 Standard MR imaging and MR arthrography were performed with 0.2-T (low-field-streng

194 etter than MRI examinations without included arthrography, which currently predominates the clinical

195 his review, the utility of MR imaging and MR arthrography will be explored in evaluation of shoulder

196 MR arthrography with direct intraarticular injection of con

197 he ulnar side of the TFC complex, coronal MR arthrography with the wrist in neutral position or radia

198 Retrospective review of 45 cases of wrist arthrography with this technique disclosed no complicati

199 hip pain prospectively underwent indirect MR arthrography (with intravenous administration of 0.2 mmo

200 MR arthrography yielded the highest accuracy for the detect