Meeting Banner
Abstract #2582

Comparison of CSF Flow Imaging Methods

Matthew Borzage1,2,3, Skorn Ponrartana4, Wende Gibbs5, Hollie Lai4, Marvin Nelson4, Benita Tamrazi4, Gordon McComb6, and Stefan Blüml7,8

1Radiology, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States, 2Rudi Schulte Research Institute, Santa Barbara, CA, United States, 3Neonatology, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States, 4Radiology, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, CA, United States, 5Radiology, University of Southern California, CA, United States, 6Neurosurgery, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States, 7Radiology, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, CA, 8Rudi Schule Research Institute, Santa Barbara, CA

We compared the quality of CSF flow images of ten subjects acquired with T2-weighted flow-void, phase-contrast, and tag-based MR methods. Tag-based methods included the variable image contrast TimeSLIP sequence and a newly designed method, termed TimeSTAMP, with constant contrast. Five radiologists and one neurosurgeon rated them on usefulness for identifying flow with a Likert scale: 5=highest to 1=lowest. Flow was detectable with high confidence for TimeSLIP and TimeSTAMP (4.8 ± 0.2), confidence was significantly lower (p<0.0001) in flow-void (2.5 ± 0.7) and phase-contrast (2.6 ± 0.5) images.

This abstract and the presentation materials are available to members only; a login is required.

Join Here

Abstract