ArticleActa neurochirurgica2023
Comparing 1.5 T and 3.0 T MR data for 3D visualization of neurovascular relationships in the posterior fossa.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeurovascular relationships in the posterior fossa are more frequently investigated due to the increasing availability of 3.0 Tesla MRI. For an assessment with 3D visualization, no systematic analyzes are available so far and the question arises as to whether 3.0 Tesla MRI should be given preference over 1.5 Tesla MRI.
methodsIn a prospective study, a series of 25 patients each underwent MRI investigations with 3D-CISS and 3D-TOF at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. For both field strengths separately, blood vessel information from the TOF data was fused into the CISS data after segmentation and registration. Four visualizations were created for each field strength, with and without optimization before and after fusion, which were evaluated with a rating system and verified with the intraoperative situation.
resultsWhen only CISS data was used, nerves and vessels were better visualized at 1.5 Tesla. After fusion, flow and pulsation artifacts were reduced in both cases, missing vessel sections were supplemented at 3.0 Tesla and 3D visualization at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla led to anatomically comparable results. By subsequent manual correction, the remaining artifacts were further eliminated, with the 3D visualization being significantly better at 3.0 Tesla, since the higher field strength led to sharper contours of small vessel and nerve structures.
conclusion3D visualizations at 1.5 Tesla are sufficiently detailed for planning microvascular decompression and can be used without restriction. Fusion further improves the quality of 3D visualization at 3.0 Tesla and enables an even more accurate delineation of cranial nerves and vessels.
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.