摘要
目的 探讨正常Meckel腔（MC）CT和MRI最佳检查方法及序列。方法 60例MC正常成人分为3组：20例行SE T1WI、GRE T1WI及FSE T2WI扫描，20例行SE T1WI-C^＋、FR FSE T2WI及3DF SE T2WI扫描，另20例行CT和CT-C^＋扫描。采用双盲法评价并比较8种检查方法-序列对MC正常解剖结构的显示能力和伪影程度。结果 硬膜壁：显示外侧壁GRE T1WI、3D FSE T2WI和CT平扫不如其他5种方法（H=135．54，P〈0．05）；显示内侧壁、上壁、前壁、下壁和后壁SE T1WI、FSE T2WI、FR FSE T2WI和SE T1WI-C^＋优于其他4种方法（H=122．76～142．22，P〈0．05）。显示三叉神经节：SE T1WI、FSE T2WI、FR FSE T2WI和SE T1WI-C^＋优于其他4种方法（H=135．64，P〈0．05）。显示三叉神经节周围静脉丛：SE T1WI-C^＋优于其他7种方法（H=139．54，P〈0．05）。显示神经纤维：FSE T1WI和FR FSE T2WI优于其他6种方法（H=159．00，P〈0．05）。显示三叉神经池：SE T1WI、FSE T2WI、FR FSE T2WI和SE T1WI-C^＋优于其他4种方法（H=147．00，P〈0．05）。磁敏感伪影：GRE T1WI和3D FSE T2WI多于其他序列（H=150．84，P〈0．05）。骨伪影：CT有伪影。牙齿和运动伪影：CT和MRI各序列无差别。结论 MC检查应首选SE T1WI和FSE T2WI；必要时可使用FR FSE T2WI和SE T1WI-C^＋作为补充；CT和CT-C^＋也可用于检查MC；GRE T1WI和3D FSE T2WI不适合MC检查。
Objective To study the optimized method and sequence of CT and MRI on detecting the normal Meckel cave （MC）. Methods Sixty people with normal MC were equally divided into three groups： GroupⅠ , SE T1WI, GRE T2WI, and FSE T2WI were performed; groupⅡ, SE T1WI-C^＋ , FR FSE T2WI, and 3D FSE T2WI were performed; and group Ⅲ CT and CT-C^＋ were performed. The efficacy of the different methods mentioned above were compared in terms of the detection of theanatomy of MC and the artifacts produced. Results Dural walls： GRE T1WI, 3D FSE T2WI, and CT were inferior to other five methods in the detection of lateral wall （H=135.54, P〈0.05） ;SE T1WI, FSE T2WI, FR FSE T2WI, and SE T1WI-C^＋ were superior to other methods in the detection of inner wall, superior wall, anterior wall, inferior wall, and posterior wall （H=122.76- 142.22, P〈0.05）. SE T1WI, FSE T2WI, FRFSE T2WI, and SE T1WI-C^＋ were superior to other methods in detection of trigeminal ganglion （H=135.64,P〈0.05）. SE T1WI-C^＋ was superior to other methods in detection of perineural venous plexus of trigeminal ganglion （H= 139.54, P〈0.05）. FSE T2 WI and FR FSE T2 WI were superior to the other six methods in detection of nerve fibers （H=159.00,P〈0.05）. SE T1WI, FSE T2WI, FR FSE T2WI, and SE T1WI-C^＋ were superior to the other four methods in detection of trigeminal cistern （ H=147.00, P〈0.05）. Magnetic susceptibility artifact in GRE T1WI and 3D FSE T2 WI were more than that of the other methods （H=150.84,P〈0.05）. There was bone artifact on CT examination. There were no difference between tooth artifact and moving artifact on CT and MRI examination. Conclusion SE T1 WI and FSE T2 WI are the optimal methods for detection of MC;FR FSE T2 WI and SE T1 WI-C^＋ can be used as supplement when necessary; CT and CT-C^＋ an also be used, while GRE T1WI and 3D FSE T2WI are not appropriated.
出处
《青岛大学医学院学报》
CAS
2006年第4期317-320,共4页
Acta Academiae Medicinae Qingdao Universitatis
基金
青岛市科技局(科技发展指导计划第一批-78)
教育部留学回国人员科研基金资助项目(教外司留2004-527)
