A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

[Comparison MR cholangiopancreatography with 3D-fast recovery fast spin echo in several different slice thicknesses]. | LitMetric

Purpose: To evaluate the technical quality and visibility of the biliary tree and pancreatic duct on magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) images obtained with a single-breath-hold three-dimensional (3D) fast-recovery fast spin-echo (FRFSE) sequence in several different slice thicknesses.

Materials And Methods: As a fundamental study, tubes of various inside diameters filled gadolinium solutions were acquired at 1.5 T in 3D-FRFSE. We observed error rate changes of volume inside the tubes and the visibility of thinner tubes. MRCP was performed at 1.5 T in 8 consecutive patients (4 men and 4 women, aged 22-58 years). Seven radiologists graded images obtained with each slice thickness in a blind fashion. Furthermore, we compared 1.4 mm slice thickness images with 1.8 mm slice thickness images in a continuous rating scale for the same patient. We assessed differences in technical quality, overall visibility, and six individual ductal segments of the biliary tree and pancreatic duct.

Results: If slice thickness were thinner relative to diameter, the error rate would be closer to zero. But, when slice thickness was 0.8 mm, the error rate became clearly higher because of low intensity. In the fundamental study, we thought that the appropriate slice thickness is between 1.0 mm and 2.4 mm. The visibility of images of thinner tubes could be improved by having a thinner slice thickness. In particular, MRCP overall images generated from a 1.4 mm slice thickness were found to be significantly superior to those generated from a 1.8 mm slice thickness (p<0.001); this was also true as regards the pancreatic duct and cystic duct (p<0.01, p<0.05).

Conclusion: We conclude that a 1.4 mm slice thickness is appropriate for MRCP.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.66.749DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

slice thickness
36
error rate
12
slice
11
thickness
9
technical quality
8
quality visibility
8
biliary tree
8
tree pancreatic
8
mrcp images
8
fundamental study
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!