Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Magn Reson Imaging ; 47(1): 272-281, 2018 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28470915

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To validate three widely-used acceleration methods in four-dimensional (4D) flow cardiac MR; segmented 4D-spoiled-gradient-echo (4D-SPGR), 4D-echo-planar-imaging (4D-EPI), and 4D-k-t Broad-use Linear Acquisition Speed-up Technique (4D-k-t BLAST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Acceleration methods were investigated in static/pulsatile phantoms and 25 volunteers on 1.5 Tesla MR systems. In phantoms, flow was quantified by 2D phase-contrast (PC), the three 4D flow methods and the time-beaker flow measurements. The later was used as the reference method. Peak velocity and flow assessment was done by means of all sequences. For peak velocity assessment 2D PC was used as the reference method. For flow assessment, consistency between mitral inflow and aortic outflow was investigated for all pulse-sequences. Visual grading of image quality/artifacts was performed on a four-point-scale (0 = no artifacts; 3 = nonevaluable). RESULTS: For the pulsatile phantom experiments, the mean error for 2D PC = 1.0 ± 1.1%, 4D-SPGR = 4.9 ± 1.3%, 4D-EPI = 7.6 ± 1.3% and 4D-k-t BLAST = 4.4 ± 1.9%. In vivo, acquisition time was shortest for 4D-EPI (4D-EPI = 8 ± 2 min versus 4D-SPGR = 9 ± 3 min, P < 0.05 and 4D-k-t BLAST = 9 ± 3 min, P = 0.29). 4D-EPI and 4D-k-t BLAST had minimal artifacts, while for 4D-SPGR, 40% of aortic valve/mitral valve (AV/MV) assessments scored 3 (nonevaluable). Peak velocity assessment using 4D-EPI demonstrated best correlation to 2D PC (AV:r = 0.78, P < 0.001; MV:r = 0.71, P < 0.001). Coefficient of variability (CV) for net forward flow (NFF) volume was least for 4D-EPI (7%) (2D PC:11%, 4D-SPGR: 29%, 4D-k-t BLAST: 30%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In phantom, all 4D flow techniques demonstrated mean error of less than 8%. 4D-EPI demonstrated the least susceptibility to artifacts, good image quality, modest agreement with the current reference standard for peak intra-cardiac velocities and the highest consistency of intra-cardiac flow quantifications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:272-281.


Asunto(s)
Corazón/diagnóstico por imagen , Imagenología Tridimensional , Imagen por Resonancia Cinemagnética , Fantasmas de Imagen , Adulto , Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Artefactos , Velocidad del Flujo Sanguíneo , Imagen Eco-Planar , Femenino , Voluntarios Sanos , Ventrículos Cardíacos/diagnóstico por imagen , Humanos , Interpretación de Imagen Asistida por Computador , Procesamiento de Imagen Asistido por Computador , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Válvula Mitral/diagnóstico por imagen , Valores de Referencia , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Sístole , Adulto Joven
2.
Surg Endosc ; 32(3): 1165-1173, 2018 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28840324

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Surgeons of today are faced with unprecedented challenges; necessitating a novel approach to pre-operative preparation which takes into account the specific tests each case poses. In this study, we examine patient-specific mental rehearsal for pre-surgical practice and assess whether this method has an additional effect when compared to generic mental rehearsal. METHODS: Sixteen medical students were trained how to perform a simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC). After baseline assessments, they were randomised to two equal groups and asked to complete three SLCs involving different anatomical variants. Prior to each procedure, Group A practiced mental rehearsal with the use of a pre-prepared checklist and Group B mental rehearsal with the checklist combined with virtual models matching the anatomical variations of the SLCs. The performance of the two groups was compared using simulator provided metrics and competency assessment tool (CAT) scoring by two blinded assessors. RESULTS: The participants performed equally well when presented with a "straight-forward" anatomy [Group A vs. Group B-time sec: 445.5 vs. 496 p = 0.64-NOM: 437 vs. 413 p = 0.88-PL cm: 1317 vs. 1059 p = 0.32-per: 0.5 vs. 0 p = 0.22-NCB: 0 vs. 0 p = 0.71-DVS: 0 vs. 0 p = 0.2]; however, Group B performed significantly better [Group A vs. B Total CAT score-Short Cystic Duct (SCD): 20.5 vs. 26.31 p = 0.02 η 2 = 0.32-Double cystic Artery (DA): 24.75 vs. 30.5 p = 0.03 η 2 = 0.28] and committed less errors (Damage to Vital Structures-DVS, SCD: 4 vs. 0 p = 0.03 η 2=0.34, DA: 0 vs. 1 p = 0.02 η 2 = 0.22). in the cases with more challenging anatomies. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that patient-specific preparation with the combination of anatomical models and mental rehearsal may increase operative quality of complex procedures.


Asunto(s)
Recursos Audiovisuales , Colecistectomía Laparoscópica/educación , Competencia Clínica , Aprendizaje , Modelos Anatómicos , Entrenamiento Simulado/métodos , Estudiantes de Medicina/psicología , Lista de Verificación , Colecistectomía Laparoscópica/normas , Humanos , Análisis y Desempeño de Tareas
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...