scholarly journals P20.03: Co-relation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with antenatal ultrasound findings, and the effect on management, in the evaluation of the fetal abdomen

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 248-248
Author(s):  
S. V. Gandhi ◽  
E. H. Whitby
2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (5) ◽  
pp. e74-e76 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Shah ◽  
O Abu-Sanad ◽  
H Marsh

Introduction Paratesticular lesions are common, and one subgroup is paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma. The latter is a relatively uncommon (but aggressive) tumour that affects children and adolescents predominantly. Ultrasound is the first-line investigation, but can be inconclusive. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can provide useful information, but its role in the diagnosis of rhabdomyosarcoma is not clear. Case History We report a 17-year-old male who presented with a one-month history of a rapidly enlarging, non-tender, lump in the right testicle. Urgent ultrasound of the scrotum revealed a heterogenous paratesticular mass that was hypervascular and showed calcification in the right inguinal area. MRI of the pelvis showed a solid, enhancing lesion of dimension located superior to the upper pole of the right testes and a slightly heterogeneous T2 signal, but was homogenous post-contrast. The patient underwent right radical orchidectomy, and histology results were assessed. He received chemotherapy and is being followed up. Conclusions Improvements in imaging in addition to early surgical intervention and chemotherapy treatment are crucial to improve survival chances against rhabdomyosarcoma. Ultrasound findings for benign diseases may mimic those seen in rhabdomyosarcoma. In such cases of diagnostic uncertainty, our surgical team suggest MRI to reduce the risk of a delayed diagnosis and time to treatment.


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (04) ◽  
pp. 405-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
James F. Griffith ◽  
Radhesh Krishna Lalam

AbstractWhen it comes to examining the brachial plexus, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are complementary investigations. US is well placed for screening most extraforaminal pathologies, whereas MRI is more sensitive and accurate for specific clinical indications. For example, MRI is probably the preferred technique for assessment of trauma because it enables a thorough evaluation of both the intraspinal and extraspinal elements, although US can depict extraforaminal neural injury with a high level of accuracy. Conversely, US is probably the preferred technique for examination of neurologic amyotrophy because a more extensive involvement beyond the brachial plexus is the norm, although MRI is more sensitive than US for evaluating muscle denervation associated with this entity. With this synergy in mind, this review highlights the tips for examining the brachial plexus with US and MRI.


Endoscopy ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
BP McMahon ◽  
JB Frøkjær ◽  
A Bergmann ◽  
DH Liao ◽  
E Steffensen ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
pp. 10-23
Author(s):  
T. A. Akhadov ◽  
S. Yu. Guryakov ◽  
M. V. Ublinsky

For a long time, there was a need to apply magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique for lung visualization in clinical practice. The development of this method is stimulated by necessity of the emergence of an alternative to computed tomography, especially when radiation and injection of iodine-containing contrast agents are contraindicated or undesirable, for example, in pregnant women and children, people with intolerance to iodinated contrast. One of the reasons why lung MRI is still rarely used is lack of elaborated standardized protocols that would be adapted to clinical needs of medical society. This publication is a current literature review on the use of MRI in lung studies.


2007 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
A. Dechant

On the morning of October 10, 2003, the residents of New York awoke to find that an entire page of their beloved paper, The Times, had been usurped for the sole purpose of flagrant self-promotion and protestation. On his own behalf, Dr. Raymand Damadian had purchased a one page spread bemoaning his exclusion in the Nobel Prize for Medicine that year which had previously been awarded to Paul Laterbur and Peter Mansfield for their contributions to the development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Over the course of the next few months, the public was to witness a series of such articles proclaiming that a shameful wrong had been committed, and that the truth would eventually prove Dr. Damadian’s accusations. That truth lay in the early theoretical and technical foundations that led to the discovery of MRI. Described just after the Second World War, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) was hailed as a breakthrough in physical chemistry for which Felix Bloch and Edward Purcell were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1952. Two decades later, in 1971, Dr. Damadian discovered that differences between the NMR signals of cancerous and normal tissue might provide a rapid means of cancer detection. However, Laterbur and Mansfield were the first to actually demonstrate images of live tissue using the application of magnetic gradients – the key to modern MRI. Though speculation exists that Dr. Damadian may have been excluded from the prize due to his religious beliefs or political rivalry, only time will reveal the whole truth when the Nobel files are opened 50 years hence. Bradley W. The Nobel Prize: Three Investigators Allowed but Two Were Chosen. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2004; 19:520. Laterbur P. Image formation by induced local interactions: examples of employing nuclear magnetic resonance. Nature 1973; 242:190-191. Mansfield P, Grannell P. “NMR diffraction in solids?” Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 1973; 63:L433-L426.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document