We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Perforator Phase Contrast Angiography of Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforators: A Better Preoperative Imaging Tool for Flap Surgery than Computed Tomographic Angiography?
Investigative Radiology 2017 June
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of in vivo perforator visualization by a newly proposed magnetic resonance-based perforator phase contrast angiography (pPCA) technique for deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap surgery and to prospectively compare its image quality and clinical value with computed tomographic angiography (CTA), the state-of-the-art perforator imaging technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. DIEP pPCA and CTA data were acquired in 10 female patients before DIEP flap surgery. Image findings were compared between the two techniques and with literature reports.
RESULTS: The overall image quality is negatively correlated with patient BMI for CTA, but positively correlated with BMI for pPCA. Compared with CTA, pPCA has significantly better image quality (P = 0.005), signal-to-noise ratio (P < 0.001), and contrast-to-noise ratio (perforator-to-muscle, P < 0.001; perforator-to-fat, P = 0.014). It also has preferable clinical value ratings, although not statistically significant (P = 0.388). There is a good agreement (84%) between perforators detected by pPCA and CTA. Perforator location deviations between pPCA and CTA are compatible with the precision required for plastic surgery. Perforator size measured by pPCA seems to be more accurate than CTA, as it is 0.8 ± 0.3 mm smaller (P < 0.001), consistent with the reported 0.5 to 1.2 mm overestimation by CTA. There is no significant difference in perforator intramuscular course assessment (P = 0.415).
CONCLUSIONS: The developed magnetic resonance-based pPCA technique presents superior image quality, better vessel contrast, and more accurate perforator anatomy than the x-ray-based CTA. pPCA has the potential to emerge as the preferred preoperative planning tool for perforator flap reconstructive surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. DIEP pPCA and CTA data were acquired in 10 female patients before DIEP flap surgery. Image findings were compared between the two techniques and with literature reports.
RESULTS: The overall image quality is negatively correlated with patient BMI for CTA, but positively correlated with BMI for pPCA. Compared with CTA, pPCA has significantly better image quality (P = 0.005), signal-to-noise ratio (P < 0.001), and contrast-to-noise ratio (perforator-to-muscle, P < 0.001; perforator-to-fat, P = 0.014). It also has preferable clinical value ratings, although not statistically significant (P = 0.388). There is a good agreement (84%) between perforators detected by pPCA and CTA. Perforator location deviations between pPCA and CTA are compatible with the precision required for plastic surgery. Perforator size measured by pPCA seems to be more accurate than CTA, as it is 0.8 ± 0.3 mm smaller (P < 0.001), consistent with the reported 0.5 to 1.2 mm overestimation by CTA. There is no significant difference in perforator intramuscular course assessment (P = 0.415).
CONCLUSIONS: The developed magnetic resonance-based pPCA technique presents superior image quality, better vessel contrast, and more accurate perforator anatomy than the x-ray-based CTA. pPCA has the potential to emerge as the preferred preoperative planning tool for perforator flap reconstructive surgery.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app