BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Journal of Radiology (2006) 79, 201-207
© 2006 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/72842752
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mitra, D
Right arrow Articles by Gholkar, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mitra, D
Right arrow Articles by Gholkar, A

Comparison of image quality, diagnostic confidence and interobserver variability in contrast enhanced MR angiography and 2D time of flight angiography in evaluation of carotid stenosis

D Mitra, FRCR 1 D Connolly, FRCR 1 S Jenkins, FRCR 1 P English, DCR 1 D Birchall, FRCR 1 C Mandel, FRCR 1 K Shrikanth, MD 1 B Gregson, PhD 2 and A Gholkar, FRCR 1

1 Department of Neuroradiology, Regional Neurosciences Centre, Newcastle General Hospital, Westgate Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 6BE, 2 Academic Department of Neurosurgery, School of Surgical and Reproductive Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK


Figure 1
View larger version (12K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Box plots showing distribution of visual analogue scores for image quality from each of the three raters for contrast enhanced MR angiography(CE MRA) and time of flight MR angiography (TOF MRA).

 

Figure 2
View larger version (13K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Box plots showing distribution of visual analogue scores for observer confidence(for visual estimation of stenosis) from each of the three raters for contrast enhanced MR angiography (CE MRA) and time of flight MR angiography (TOF MRA).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (13K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Box plots showing distribution of visual analogue scores for observer confidence(for stenosis estimation on the basis of measurements) from each of the three raters for contrast enhanced MR angiography (CE MRA) and time of flight MR angiography (TOF MRA).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (78K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. (a) Time of flight MR angiography (TOF MRA) and (b) contrast enhanced MR angiography (CE MRA) showing oblique projections of the carotid arteries. Note the significant degradation of the image in TOF MRA (arrows) due to movement, which is not seen in the CE MRA image.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (60K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 5. (a) Anteroposterior (AP) and (b) oblique projections of contrast enhanced MR angiography (CE MRA) of carotid arteries showing presence of venous signal (arrows). Note that despite the presence of venous signal the visualization of the carotid arteries is not significantly impaired.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (66K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 6. (a) Time of flight MR angiography (TOF MRA) and (b) contrast enhanced MR angiography (CE MRA) showing oblique projections of the carotid arteries. Note the much larger field of view of CE MRA demonstrating vessels from the arch of the aorta to the base of the skull and the better demonstration of the external carotid branches on CE MRA (long arrows) compared with TOF MRA (short arrows).

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2006 by the British Institute of Radiology.