ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2017
Visualizing polymeric bioresorbable scaffolds with three-dimensional image reconstruction using contrast-enhanced micro-computed tomography.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards Realistic 3D Models of Tumor Vascular Networks.Cancers · 2023Article
- 3D printing of tissue engineering scaffolds: a focus on vascular regeneration.Bio-design and manufacturing · 2021Review
- Article
- Cardiovascular imaging 2017 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2018Article
- Micro-CT - a digital 3D microstructural voyage into scaffolds: a systematic review of the reported methods and results.Biomaterials research · 2018Review
- Cardiovascular imaging 2016 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are no previous studies showing how to visualize polymeric bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) by micro-computed tomography (mCT). There are no previous studies showing how to visualize polymeric bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) by micro-computed tomography (mCT). This study aimed to explore the feasibility of detecting polymeric BRS with 3-dimensional reconstruction of BRS images by contrast-enhanced mCT and to determine the optimal imaging settings. BRSs, made of poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA), were implanted in coronary bifurcation models. Five treatments were conducted to examine an optimal condition for imaging BRSs: Baseline treatment, samples were filled with normal saline and scanned with mCT immediately; Treatment-1, -2, -3 and -4, samples were filled with contrast medium and scanned with mCT immediately and 1, 2 and 3 h thereafter, corresponding to soaking time of contrast medium of 0, 1, 2 and 3 h. Compared to Baseline, mCT scanning completely discriminate the scaffold struts from the vascular lumen immediately after filling the samples with contrast agent but not from the vascular wall until the contrast agent soaking time was more than 2 h (Treatment-3 and -4). By setting 10-15 HU as a cut-point of CT values, the scaffold strut detectable rate at Baseline and Teatment-1, -2, -3 and -4 were 1.23 ± 0.31%, 1.65 ± 0.26%, 58.14 ± 12.84%, 97.97 ± 1.43% and 98.90 ± 0.38%, respectively (Treatment-3 vs. Treatment-2, p < 0.01); meanwhile, the success rate of 3D BRS reconstruction with high quality images at Baseline and Teatment-1, -2, -3 and -4 were 1.23%, 1.65%, 58.14%, 97.97% and 98.90%, respectively (Treatment-3 vs. Treatment-2, p < 0.01). In conclusions, reconstruction of 3D BRS images is technically feasible by contrast-enhanced mCT and soaking time of contrast agent for more than 2 h is necessary for complete separation of scaffold struts from the surrounding structures in the phantom samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.