Effects of Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Thermal Imaging Signal Artifact During Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy on Thermal Damage Estimate and Postoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Ablative Area Concordance

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 524-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean M Munier ◽  
Akshay N Desai ◽  
Nitesh V Patel ◽  
Shabbar F Danish

Abstract BACKGROUND Magnetic resonance-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) is a minimally invasive procedure that utilizes intraoperative magnetic resonance thermal imaging (MRTI) to generate a thermal damage estimate (TDE) of the ablative area. In select cases, the MRTI contains a signal artifact or defect that distorts the ablative region. No study has considered the impact of this artifact on TDE accuracy. OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of intraoperative MRTI signal artifact on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-predicted ablative area. METHODS All ablations were performed using the Visualase MRI-Guided Laser Ablation System (Medtronic). Patients were grouped based on whether the intraoperative MRTI contained signal artifact that distorted the ablative region. Cross-sectional area of the ablative lesion from the MRI image was measured, and the difference between intraoperative TDE and postoperative MRI cross-sectional area was calculated and compared between groups with and without intraoperative MRTI artifact. RESULTS A total of 91 patients undergoing MRgLITT for various surgical indications were examined. MRTI artifact was observed in 43.9% of cases overall. The mean absolute difference between TDE and the postoperative MRI cross-sectional area was 94.8 mm2 (SEM = 11.6) in the group with intraoperative MRTI artifact and 54.4 mm2 (SEM = 5.5) in the nonartifact group. CONCLUSION MRTI signal artifact is common during LITT. The presence of signal artifact during intraoperative MRTI results in higher variation between intraoperative TDE and postoperative MRI cross-sectional ablative area. In cases in which intraoperative MRTI artifact is observed, there may be a larger degree of variation between observed intraoperative TDE and measured postoperative MRTI ablative area.

1994 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 388???393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiaki Hamanishi ◽  
Noboru Matukura ◽  
Masahiko Fujita ◽  
Mituo Tomihara ◽  
Seisuke Tanaka

2021 ◽  
pp. 028418512110032
Author(s):  
Henrique Mansur ◽  
Guilherme Estanislau ◽  
Marcos de Noronha ◽  
Rita de Cassia Marqueti ◽  
Emerson Fachin-Martins ◽  
...  

Background The cross-sectional area (CSA) records make an essential measurement for determining the mechanical properties of tendons, such as stress and strength. However, there is no consensus regarding the best method to record the CSA from different tendons. Purpose To determine intra- and inter-rater reliability for CSA measures from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the following tendons: tibialis anterior; tibialis posterior; fibularis longus and brevis; and Achilles. Material and Methods We designed an observational study with repeated measures taken from a convenience sample of 20 participants diagnosed with acute or chronic ankle sprain. Two independent raters took three separate records from the CSA of ankle tendon images of each MRI slice. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) defined the quality (associations) and magnitude (differences), respectively, of intra- and inter-rater reliability on the measures plotted by the Bland–Altman method. Results Data showed very high intra- and inter-rater correlations for measures taken from all tendons analyzed (ICC 0.952–0.999). It also revealed an excellent agreement between raters (0.12%–2.3%), with bias no higher than 2 mm2 and LoA in the range of 4.4–7.9 mm2. The differences between repeated measures recorded from the thinnest tendons (fibularis longus and brevis) revealed the lowest bias and narrowest 95% LoA. Conclusion Reliability for the CSA of ankle tendons measured from MRI taken by independent rates was very high, with the smallest differences between raters observed when the thinnest tendon was analyzed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 418-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.A.S. Carneiro ◽  
L.C. Barcelos ◽  
P.R.P. Nunes ◽  
L.R.M.F. de Souza ◽  
E.P. de Oliveira ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document