|
|
|
| Comparison of the diagnostic value of DWI in placenta implantation at 1.5T and 3.0T MRI |
| WU Qian-qian, LIU Hong-sheng, CHEN Yuan-kai, KUANG Min-wei, LIU Zhen-qing |
| Department of Medical Imaging, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center, Guangzhou 510120, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To investigate the application of DWI in placenta implantation(PIA), and to compare the difference of the sequence between MRI at 1.5T and 3.0T. Methods: A retrospective analysis was carried out by analyzing 148 cases of suspected placenta previa with completed 1.5T, 3.0T MRI and B-ultrasound examination in Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center from August 2016 to August 2018, using surgical and pathological results as the gold standard, and further comparison and analysis were performed focusing on the signal-to-noise ratio(SNR), apparent diffusion coefficient(ADC) value and the diagnostic accuracy indexes(sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate, false negative rate, etc.) of different types of placenta implantation. Results: The SNR of MRI at 3.0T was better than that at 1.5T under the same thickness. When b=50, the SNR of 3.0T at a thickness of 4 cm was lower than that of 1.5T at the thickness of 5 cm. Besides, when b=800, there was no significant difference between the SNR of 3.0T at 4 cm and that of 1.5T at 5 cm. Furthermore, the ADC values of the implanted part of the two models were higher than those of the non-implanted part, and there was no significant difference between the two models. Meanwhile, the diagnostic accuracy of 3.0T MRI was better than that of 1.5T MRI. Conclusion: DWI is helpful for definite diagnosis of placenta implantation. 3.0T MRI is superior to 1.5T MRI on the accuracy of PIA and the SNR of DWI sequence. It is more likely to recommend 3.0T MRI for placental examination on the premise of controlling total scan time.
|
|
Received: 13 February 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1]Kameyama KN, Kido A, Himoto Y, et al. What is the most suitable MR signal index of quantitative evaluation of placental function using half-fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo compared with T2-relaxation time?[J]. Acta Radiol, 2018, 59(6): 748-754.
[2]梁旭，陈荟竹，宁刚. 产前MRI在胎盘植入中的诊断价值[J]. 放射学实践，2016，31（2）：163-166.
[3]韦树长，陈文勇. 磁共振弥散加权成像诊断胎盘植入的价值[J]. 医学综述，2017，5（23）：1859-1862.
[4]黄艳图，何超明. 磁共振成像信噪比的评价方法[J]. 磁共振成像，2012，3（2）：149-151.
[5]石慧，金显跃，孙希杰，等. 产前胎盘植入的MRI诊断[J]. 中国医学影像杂志，2015，23（6）：474-477.
[6]Kumar I, Verma A, Ojha R, et al. Invasive placental disorders: a prospective US and MRI comparative analysis[J]. Acta Radiol, 2017, 58(1): 121-128.
[7]Goh WA, Zalud I. Placenta accreta: diagnosis, management and the molecular biology of the morbidly adherent placentab[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2016, 29(11): 1795-1800.
[8]杨正汉，冯逢，王霄英，等. 磁共振成像技术指南[M]. 北京：人民军医出版社，2007：263-267.
[9]Lim PS, Greenberg M, Edelson MI, et al. Utility of ultrasound and MRI in prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a pilot study[J]. AJR, 2011, 197(6): 1506-1513.
[10]Morita S, Ueno E, Fujimura M, et al. Feasibility of diffusion-weighted MRI for defining placental invasion[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2009, 30(3): 666-671.
[11]阮晓花，金科，刘均喜，等. 探讨DWI成像对于各型胎盘植入的诊断价值[J]. 湖南师范大学学报，2016，13（2）：72-74.
[12]Cannie MM, De Keyzer F, Van Laere S, et al. Potential heating effect in the gravid uterus by using 3-T MR imaging protocols: experimental study in miniature pigs[J]. Radiology, 2016, 279(3): 754-761. |
|
|
|
