Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jack, C. R.
Right arrow Articles by Parisi, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jack, C. R., Jr
Right arrow Articles by Parisi, J. E.

Radiology, Vol 192, 123-127, Copyright © 1994 by Radiological Society of North America


ARTICLES

Diagnosis of mesial temporal sclerosis with conventional versus fast spin-echo MR imaging

CR Jack Jr, KN Krecke, PH Luetmer, GD Cascino, FW Sharbrough, PC O'Brien and JE Parisi
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905.

PURPOSE: To test the accuracy of fast spin-echo (FSE) imaging versus that of double-echo conventional spin-echo (CSE) imaging in identification of the increased hippocampal signal intensity associated with mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty- four subjects who subsequently underwent anterior temporal lobectomy for intractable seizures and in whom the presence or absence of MTS was ascertained with certainty were imaged with CSE and FSE. Three blinded reviewers evaluated the first and second CSE images (CSE1 and CSE2) and the FSE images. RESULTS: CSE1 imaging had lower accuracy than FSE (P = .038) and CSE2 (P = .006) imaging. CSE2 imaging was slightly more accurate than FSE imaging (P = .048). Contrast-to-noise ratios were lower for CSE1 imaging than for CSE2 or FSE imaging (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The FSE sequence evaluated was more time efficient than CSE imaging but slightly less accurate. Therefore, substitution of this sequence for a CSE sequence seems unwarranted.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1994 by the Radiological Society of North America.