UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Pelvimetry and patient acceptability compared between open 0.5-T and closed 1.5-T MR systems


Michel, Sven C A; Rake, Annett; Götzmann, Lutz; Seifert, Burkhardt; Ferrazzini, Mattia; Chaoui, Rabih; Treiber, Karl; Keller, Thomas M; Marincek, Borut; Kubik-Huch, Rahel A (2002). Pelvimetry and patient acceptability compared between open 0.5-T and closed 1.5-T MR systems. European Radiology, 12(12):2898-2905.

Abstract

Our objective was to compare maternal pelvimetry and patient acceptability between open low-field (0.5-T) and closed 1.5-T MR systems. Thirty women referred for pelvimetry (pregnant: n=15) were scanned twice in the supine position, once in the vertical open system and once in the closed system. Each patient completed a comfort and acceptability questionnaire. Pelvimetric and questionnaire data were compared between systems. Total scan time was double in the open system (7:52+/-1:47 vs 3:12+/-1:20 min). Poor image quality in the open system prevented assessment of interspinous and intertuberous diameters in one woman and all measurements in another, both pregnant, with abdominal circumferences >120 cm. The open system was much more acceptable in terms of claustrophobia and confinement (both p<0.01). Claustrophobia interrupted one closed examination. Thirty-three percent of pregnant women in both systems reported fear of fetal harm. Sixty percent of all women preferred the open system, 7% the closed system, and 33% had no preference. Limits of agreement of 3-5% from the mean for all diameters confirmed good pelvimetric reproducibility. Women's preference for open-system MR pelvimetry is feasible with abdominal circumferences <or=120 cm.

Abstract

Our objective was to compare maternal pelvimetry and patient acceptability between open low-field (0.5-T) and closed 1.5-T MR systems. Thirty women referred for pelvimetry (pregnant: n=15) were scanned twice in the supine position, once in the vertical open system and once in the closed system. Each patient completed a comfort and acceptability questionnaire. Pelvimetric and questionnaire data were compared between systems. Total scan time was double in the open system (7:52+/-1:47 vs 3:12+/-1:20 min). Poor image quality in the open system prevented assessment of interspinous and intertuberous diameters in one woman and all measurements in another, both pregnant, with abdominal circumferences >120 cm. The open system was much more acceptable in terms of claustrophobia and confinement (both p<0.01). Claustrophobia interrupted one closed examination. Thirty-three percent of pregnant women in both systems reported fear of fetal harm. Sixty percent of all women preferred the open system, 7% the closed system, and 33% had no preference. Limits of agreement of 3-5% from the mean for all diameters confirmed good pelvimetric reproducibility. Women's preference for open-system MR pelvimetry is feasible with abdominal circumferences <or=120 cm.

Citations

10 citations in Web of Science®
14 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI)
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:December 2002
Deposited On:12 Aug 2015 13:18
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 19:21
Publisher:Springer
ISSN:0938-7994
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1400-8
PubMed ID:12439568

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations