FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2080408037> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2080408037 endingPage "333" @default.
• W2080408037 startingPage "327" @default.
• W2080408037 abstract "PURPOSE To compare the precision of magnetic resonance (MR)–guided versus fluoroscopy-guided placement of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters with use of real-time MR imaging strategies optimized for each device in an in vitro model and in an animal model. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three different retrievable IVC filters were used in this study, including the Recovery, Günther Tulip, and OptEase devices. Experiments were performed on a 1.5T-MR system with prerelease interactive MR software. For each device, high-resolution real-time MR imaging was optimized with use of steady-state free precession and fast low-angle shot sequences with radial and cartesian trajectories and varying flip angles (10°–70°) and a frame rate of 2 per second. A custom-built IVC phantom was filled with dilute gadolinium contrast agent at a concentration of 0.05 mmol/L simulating a blood T1 of 8 msec and T2 of 6 msec. Signal intensities were measured in regions of interest at the filter, the IVC lumen, and the background. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were calculated. The sequence suited best for each device was chosen for in vitro filter placement in a custom-made IVC phantom. Each device was deployed five times each under MR and fluoroscopic guidance with use of identical techniques. Accuracy was measured as absolute deviation of the filter tip in millimeters from a target landing zone. Differences were assessed statistically with use of the paired t test. Each device was also placed in vivo in a swine model under MR guidance. RESULTS All three IVC filters could be clearly identified and positioned under fluoroscopic and MR imaging control. A cartesian true fast imaging sequence with steady-state precession with a flip angle of 30° or 50° resulted in optimal SNR and CNR for all three filters. The Tulip filter created more susceptibility artifacts than the other two. Filter placement accuracy was similar with MR and fluoroscopy whether comparing devices individually (P = NS) or as a group (P = NS). The mean absolute differences between MR and fluoroscopy were 0.088 mm for the OptEase filter, 0.41 mm for the Bard Recovery filter, and 0.34 mm for the Günther Tulip filter. CONCLUSIONS MR-guided placement of retrievable IVC filters is feasible and as accurate as fluoroscopy-guided placement in an in vitro model. With optimized sequences, real-time MR has the potential to develop as a reasonable alternative to fluoroscopy. To compare the precision of magnetic resonance (MR)–guided versus fluoroscopy-guided placement of retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters with use of real-time MR imaging strategies optimized for each device in an in vitro model and in an animal model. Three different retrievable IVC filters were used in this study, including the Recovery, Günther Tulip, and OptEase devices. Experiments were performed on a 1.5T-MR system with prerelease interactive MR software. For each device, high-resolution real-time MR imaging was optimized with use of steady-state free precession and fast low-angle shot sequences with radial and cartesian trajectories and varying flip angles (10°–70°) and a frame rate of 2 per second. A custom-built IVC phantom was filled with dilute gadolinium contrast agent at a concentration of 0.05 mmol/L simulating a blood T1 of 8 msec and T2 of 6 msec. Signal intensities were measured in regions of interest at the filter, the IVC lumen, and the background. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were calculated. The sequence suited best for each device was chosen for in vitro filter placement in a custom-made IVC phantom. Each device was deployed five times each under MR and fluoroscopic guidance with use of identical techniques. Accuracy was measured as absolute deviation of the filter tip in millimeters from a target landing zone. Differences were assessed statistically with use of the paired t test. Each device was also placed in vivo in a swine model under MR guidance. All three IVC filters could be clearly identified and positioned under fluoroscopic and MR imaging control. A cartesian true fast imaging sequence with steady-state precession with a flip angle of 30° or 50° resulted in optimal SNR and CNR for all three filters. The Tulip filter created more susceptibility artifacts than the other two. Filter placement accuracy was similar with MR and fluoroscopy whether comparing devices individually (P = NS) or as a group (P = NS). The mean absolute differences between MR and fluoroscopy were 0.088 mm for the OptEase filter, 0.41 mm for the Bard Recovery filter, and 0.34 mm for the Günther Tulip filter. MR-guided placement of retrievable IVC filters is feasible and as accurate as fluoroscopy-guided placement in an in vitro model. With optimized sequences, real-time MR has the potential to develop as a reasonable alternative to fluoroscopy." @default.
• W2080408037 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2080408037 creator A5007142014 @default.
• W2080408037 creator A5008441454 @default.
• W2080408037 creator A5012919642 @default.
• W2080408037 date "2006-02-01" @default.
• W2080408037 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2080408037 title "Real-time Magnetic Resonance–guided Placement of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Comparison with Fluoroscopic Guidance with Use of In Vitro and Animal Models" @default.
• W2080408037 cites W1968964344 @default.
• W2080408037 cites W1985211982 @default.
• W2080408037 cites W2030935958 @default.
• W2080408037 cites W2050374845 @default.
• W2080408037 cites W2056874847 @default.
• W2080408037 cites W2079759851 @default.
• W2080408037 cites W2082271946 @default.
• W2080408037 cites W2086454118 @default.
• W2080408037 cites W2115595964 @default.
• W2080408037 cites W2169423685 @default.
• W2080408037 cites W2403088410 @default.
• W2080408037 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rvi.0000196339.41703.6c" @default.
• W2080408037 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16517779" @default.
• W2080408037 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2080408037 type Work @default.
• W2080408037 sameAs 2080408037 @default.
• W2080408037 citedByCount "15" @default.
• W2080408037 countsByYear W20804080372012 @default.
• W2080408037 countsByYear W20804080372013 @default.
• W2080408037 countsByYear W20804080372015 @default.
• W2080408037 countsByYear W20804080372016 @default.
• W2080408037 countsByYear W20804080372020 @default.
• W2080408037 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2080408037 hasAuthorship W2080408037A5007142014 @default.
• W2080408037 hasAuthorship W2080408037A5008441454 @default.
• W2080408037 hasAuthorship W2080408037A5012919642 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConcept C104293457 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConcept C106131492 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConcept C136229726 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConcept C143409427 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConcept C2776805002 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConcept C2910216633 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConcept C31972630 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConceptScore W2080408037C104293457 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConceptScore W2080408037C106131492 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConceptScore W2080408037C126838900 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConceptScore W2080408037C136229726 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConceptScore W2080408037C143409427 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConceptScore W2080408037C2776805002 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConceptScore W2080408037C2910216633 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConceptScore W2080408037C2989005 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConceptScore W2080408037C31972630 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConceptScore W2080408037C41008148 @default.
• W2080408037 hasConceptScore W2080408037C71924100 @default.
• W2080408037 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2080408037 hasLocation W20804080371 @default.
• W2080408037 hasLocation W20804080372 @default.
• W2080408037 hasOpenAccess W2080408037 @default.
• W2080408037 hasPrimaryLocation W20804080371 @default.
• W2080408037 hasRelatedWork W2015651921 @default.
• W2080408037 hasRelatedWork W2027219424 @default.
• W2080408037 hasRelatedWork W2055350243 @default.
• W2080408037 hasRelatedWork W2079637538 @default.
• W2080408037 hasRelatedWork W2170032467 @default.
• W2080408037 hasRelatedWork W2335408592 @default.
• W2080408037 hasRelatedWork W2414626643 @default.
• W2080408037 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2080408037 hasRelatedWork W3133964112 @default.
• W2080408037 hasRelatedWork W4377014751 @default.
• W2080408037 hasVolume "17" @default.
• W2080408037 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2080408037 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2080408037 magId "2080408037" @default.
• W2080408037 workType "article" @default.