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 demonstrated at both conventional MR and MR arthrography.

5 xed positions were obtained before and after arthrography.

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

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

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

9 %) in whom SLAP lesions were diagnosed at MR arthrography.

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

11 findings were correlated with those from MR arthrography.

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

13 oscaphocapitate ligament can be diagnosed at arthrography.

14 section, radiography, and magnetic resonance arthrography.

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

16 can be visualized during routine radiocarpal arthrography.

17 Each cadaveric wrist was examined at arthrography.

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

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

20 .1 years) without HS abnormalities at hip MR arthrography.

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

22 ositions, monitor injections, and perform MR arthrography.

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

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

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

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

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

28 injuries, or avascular necrosis required MR arthrography.

29 ll patients with meniscal repair required MR arthrography.

30 en as a hypointense linear structure with MR arthrography.

31 c hands were obtained after tricompartmental 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 Standard arthrography, MR arthrography, and anatomic slices demonstrated the ulnar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63 MR arthrography better demonstrated the sublabral recess th

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

65 CT and MR arthrography both yielded moderate interobserver and int

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

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

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

69 MR arthrography demonstrated a triad of abnormal head-neck

70 MR arthrography depicted best the intraarticular disk and f

71 MR arthrography does not have a significant advantage over

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

73 80 patients who underwent arthroscopy and MR arthrography during a 54-month period were retrospective

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

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

76 MR arthrography enabled identification of the bare areas an

77 MR arthrography enables visualization of the capsular ligam

78 MR arthrography enhances visualization of the intraarticula

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

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

81 5-T magnet and then by using double-contrast arthrography followed by CT with a four-detector row sca

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

99 MR arthrography improved the visualization of all articular

100 MR arthrography improves visualization of findings of osteo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

109 MR arthrography is accurate in the detection of pulley lesi

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

111 MR arthrography is the best imaging technique for detection

112 CT arthrography is the second most accurate method.

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

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

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

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

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

118 Standard arthrography, MR arthrography, and anatomic slices demon

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

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

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

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

123 Conventional arthrography of the anterior and posterior subtalar join

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

125 Although MR arthrography of the glenohumeral joint clearly delineate

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

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

128 MR arthrography of the shoulder is reliable and accurate fo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

138 Efficiency was assessed according to arthrography procedural time.

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

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

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

142 0% and 84%, respectively, for the routine MR arthrography protocol.

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

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

145 MR arthrography provides pertinent preoperative information

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

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

148 Indirect MR arthrography significantly improves sensitivity in the e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

165 MR arthrography was performed in four specimens (eight join

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

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

168 MR arthrography was performed in two phases with saline and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

181 MR arthrography with direct intraarticular injection of con

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

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

184 MR arthrography yielded the highest accuracy for the detect