Why the study?
What are the limitations and artifacts of 2D and 3D TOF MR angiography compared to conventional angiography when assessing disease of the carotid bifurcation?
What are the limitations and artifacts of 2D and 3D TOF MR angiography compared to conventional angiography when assessing disease of the carotid bifurcation?
This essay highlights the artifacts and limitations of TOF MR angiography compared to conventional angiography in evaluating carotid bifurcation disease.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
TOF MRA artifacts warrant cautious carotid bifurcation interpretation; leaves open optimal non-invasive strategies for prospective validation.
Although conventional angiography has traditionally been the preoperative study of choice before carotid endarterectomy, alternative noninvasive methods, particularly MR angiography, are being used increasingly for evaluation of the carotid bifurcation [1, 2]. In this essay, we illustrate the limitations of and artifacts associated with two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) time-of-flight (TOF) MR angiography vs conventional angiography when assessing disease of the carotid bifurcation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patel et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: