The video demonstrates the 3-dimensional noncontrast magnetic resonance venography of lower limb venous malformation.

ASVIDE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 324-324
Author(s):  
Yin-Chen Hsu ◽  
Yao-Kuang Huang ◽  
Yuan-Hsi Tseng ◽  
Pang-Yen Chen ◽  
Chao-Ming Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Venous Malformation ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Venography ◽  
3 Dimensional

scholarly journals Magnetic resonance venography for 3-dimensional live guidance during venous sinus stenting

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaishnavi Kishore ◽  
Sri Hari Sundararajan ◽  
Raphael Doustaly ◽  
Marissa Michael ◽  
Dwight Xuan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
3D Models ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Venography ◽  
Venous Sinus ◽  
Stent Deployment ◽  
Cortical Vein ◽  
3 Dimensional ◽  
Skull Model ◽  
Procedural Guidance ◽  
Biplanar Fluoroscopy

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to report the technique for intraprocedural guidance of endovascular Venous Sinus Stenting procedures using 3-Dimensional (3D) Magnetic Resonance Venography (MRV) as an overlay on live biplanar fluoroscopy. Materials and methods Venous sinus stenting procedures performed between April and December, 2017 with 3D MRV fusion for live guidance were reviewed in this study. A thin-slice, contrast-enhanced MR Venogram was used to create 2 3D models – vessels and skull – for procedural guidance via augmented fluoroscopy (Vessel ASSIST, GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL). The skull model was used in the registration of the 3D overlay on both the frontal and lateral planes, which required 1–2 min of procedural time. The vessel model was used to mark landmarks such as the cortical vein ostia and stenosis on the 3D overlay fused with biplanar fluoroscopy. The retrospective imaging review was conducted by 3 neurointerventionalists and relied on a consensus confidence ranking on a 3-point Likert scale from 1- low confidence to 3- high confidence. The neurointerventionalists first reviewed the conventional 2-dimensional pre-stent deployment fluoroscopy images and then reviewed the corresponding images with the 3D MRV overlay. They ranked their confidence in their understanding of cortical venous anatomy for each group. Statistical analysis was performed using a Paired T Test at a 99% confidence interval. Results Ten cases were included in the retrospective image review. Operator confidence regarding the location of cortical veins was significantly increased using 3D MRV fusion during venous sinus stenting procedures (1.9 vs 2.9, p = .001). Conclusion 3-Dimensional MRV fusion is feasible and helpful in understanding the venous sinus anatomy and location of important cortical veins during venous sinus stenting procedures.

Use of magnetic resonance venography for inferior petrosal sinus sampling

2021 ◽  
pp. 112972982199726
Author(s):  
Kikutaro Tokairin ◽  
Toshiya Osanai ◽  
Noriyuki Fujima ◽  
Kinya Ishizaka ◽  
Hiroaki Motegi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Radiation Dose ◽  
Interventional Procedure ◽  
Anatomical Variations ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Venography ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Inferior Petrosal Sinus ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Patient Demographics

Background: Inferior petrosal sinus (IPS) sampling (IPSS) is a transvenous interventional procedure performed to diagnose Cushing’s disease. The reported IPSS failure rate is approximately 10% because IPS catheter delivery is conducted blindly and is challenging because of IPS anatomical variations. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of preprocedural magnetic resonance venography (MRV) for assessing IPS access routes before IPSS. Methods: Nineteen consecutive patients who underwent IPSS at a single university hospital in Japan were retrospectively studied. A preprocedural MRV protocol optimized to visualize the IPS before IPSS was established and utilized in the eight most recent cases. An IPSS procedure was considered successful when bilateral IPS catheterization was accomplished. Patient demographics, IPSS success rate, and radiation dose required during IPSS were compared between two groups: MRV group ( N = 8) and no-MRV group ( N = 11) before IPSS. Results: There were no significant differences in age, sex, and IPSS success rates between the groups. The average radiation dose was 663.6 ± 246.8 (SD) mGy and 981.7 ± 389.5 (SD) mGy in the MRV group and no-MRV group, respectively. Thus, there was a significant reduction in radiation exposure in the MRV group ( p = 0.044). Catheterization of the left IPS was unsuccessful in only one patient in the MRV group owing to IPS hypoplasty, as found on the MRV. Conclusions: Hypoplastic IPSs occur in patients and can complicate IPSS. Preprocedural MRV assessment is useful for understanding venous anatomy and preventing unnecessary intravenous catheter manipulation during IPSS, which involves blind manipulation around the IPS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document