Key result
Phase encode reordering with a 10 mm acceptance window provided a significant increase in scan efficiency over a non-reordered 5 mm method (P F 0.001) with no significant change in image quality.
Why the study?
Does phase encode reordering improve scan efficiency and image quality in 3D coronary imaging compared to standard navigator or retrospective gating methods?
Does phase encode reordering improve scan efficiency and image quality in 3D coronary imaging compared to standard navigator or retrospective gating methods?
Phase encode reordering in 3D coronary imaging improves scan efficiency and image quality compared to standard respiratory gating techniques.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jhooti et al. (1999) studied Coronary imaging. Phase encode reordering with a 10 mm acceptance window vs. Non-reordered 5 mm method and retrospective respiratory gating was evaluated on Scan efficiency and image quality (p=P F 0.001). Phase encode reordering with a 10 mm acceptance window provided a significant increase in scan efficiency over a non-reordered 5 mm method (P F 0.001) with no significant change in image quality.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: