Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate artifacts of unexpended stents and to determine their exact position for MR-guided percutaneous transluminal angioplasty using real-time sequences. Materials and Methods: By using an in vitro model, 11 unexpended stents 9 nitinol, 1 stainless steel, and 1 cobalt alloy - were investigated by MR. Each stent was studied in a vessel-phantom filled with saline solution. Imaging ...
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate artifacts of unexpended stents and to determine their exact position for MR-guided percutaneous transluminal angioplasty using real-time sequences. Materials and Methods: By using an in vitro model, 11 unexpended stents 9 nitinol, 1 stainless steel, and 1 cobalt alloy - were investigated by MR. Each stent was studied in a vessel-phantom filled with saline solution. Imaging was performed using five different real-time sequences: fast low angle shot (Flash 2D), fast imaging with steady precession (true FISP, FISP, interactive true FISP) and segmented echo planar imaging (seg. EPI). Artifacts of the introducer system and the stent were calculated by four blinded radiologists (scale: 1 - artifacts, making an excellent contribution to visualization; 2 - artifacts, making mainly a contribution to visualization; 3 - artifacts, making no contribution to visualization). Furthermore, an evaluation of the visibility of the tip of the stent-catheter and the proximal and distal end of the stent was performed using a four-point scale (very good visibility to invisible). Results: The artifacts of the introducer system and stent were rated best for Omnilink(R) (1.3 +/- 0.47), Wallstent(R) (1.6 +/- 0.5), Jostent(R) (1.65 +/- 0.5) and Luminexx(R) (1.65 +/- 0.5). The differences between Omnilink(R) and Jostent(R) as well as Omnilink(R) and Luminexx(R) were significant. A very good to good visibility of the catheter tip was observed with a mean of 1.7 +/- 0.66 for omnilink(R) followed by the Jostent(R) (1.95 +/- 0.69), by the Wallstent(R) (2.1 +/- 0.72) and by Luminexx(R) (2.5 +/- 1.14). Differences between Omnilink(R) and Luminexx(R) were significant. The visibility of the proximal and distal end of the stent was evaluated as very good to good in 4 stent catheters (Omnilink(R), Wallstent(R), Jostent(R), Luminexx(R)). However, the differences between Omni-link(R) and Jostent(R) as well as between Omnilink(R) and Luminexx(R), and between Wallstent(R) and Luminexx(R) were significant. For all evaluation criteria, the segmented EPI and the interactive true FISP were rated to be most suitable for visualization. There were no significant differences in the evaluation of these two sequences. Conclusion: Omnilink(R) stent, Jostent(R), Wallstent(R), and Luminexx(R) stent are suitable for MR-angioplasty due to their good visibility in MR. Segmented EPI- and a newly developed interactive true FISP-sequence enable an effective visualization of these stent-catheters.
Altmetric