High-Resolution 3D-Constructive Interference in Steady-State MR Imaging and 3D Time-of-Flight MR Angiography in Neurovascular Compression: A Comparison between 3T and 1.5T

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Tarnaris A,
   2. Renowden S,
   3. Coakham HB

   . A comparison of magnetic resonance angiography and constructive interference in steady state-three-dimensional Fourier transformation magnetic resonance imaging in patients with hemifacial spasm. Br J Neurosurg 2007;21:375–81

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Naraghi R,
   2. Tanrikulu L,
   3. Troescher-Weber R,
   4. et al

   . Classification of neurovascular compression in typical hemifacial spasm: three-dimensional visualization of the facial and the vestibulocochlear nerves. J Neurosurg 2007;107:1154–63

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Kakizawa Y,
   2. Seguchi T,
   3. Kodama K,
   4. et al

   . Anatomical study of the trigeminal and facial cranial nerves with the aid of 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 2008;108:483–90

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   1. Miller J,
   2. Acar F,
   3. Hamilton B,
   4. et al

   . Preoperative visualization of neurovascular anatomy in trigeminal neuralgia. J Neurosurg 2008;108:477–82

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Satoh T,
   2. Onoda K,
   3. Date I

   . Fusion imaging of three-dimensional magnetic resonance cisternograms and angiograms for the assessment of microvascular decompression in patients with hemifacial spasms. J Neurosurg 2007;106:82–89

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Yamakami I,
   2. Kobayashi E,
   3. Hirai S,
   4. et al

   . Preoperative assessment of trigeminal neuralgia and hemifacial spasm using constructive interference in steady state-three-dimensional Fourier transformation magnetic resonance imaging. Neurol Med Chir 2000;40:554–55
7. 7.↵
   1. Pagni CA,
   2. Fariselli L,
   3. Zeme S

   . Trigeminal neuralgia: non-invasive techniques versus microvascular decompression—it is really available any further improvement? Acta Neurochir Suppl 2008;101:27–33

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Liu JK,
   2. Apfelbaum RI

   . Treatment of trigeminal neuralgia. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2004;15:319–34

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Benes L,
   2. Shiratori K,
   3. Gurschi M,
   4. et al

   . Is preoperative high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging accurate in predicting neurovascular compression in patients with trigeminal neuralgia? A single-blind study. Neurosurg Rev 2005;28:131–36

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Anderson VC,
    2. Berryhill PC,
    3. Sandquist MA,
    4. et al

    . High-resolution three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography and three-dimensional spoiled gradient-recalled imaging in the evaluation of neurovascular compression in patients with trigeminal neuralgia: a double-blind pilot study. Neurosurgery 2006;58:666–73

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Hastreiter P,
    2. Naraghi R,
    3. Tomandl B,
    4. et al

    . Analysis and 3-dimensional visualization of neurovascular compression syndromes. Acad Radiol 2003;10:1369–79

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Naraghi R,
    2. Hastreiter P,
    3. Tomandl B,
    4. et al

    . Three-dimensional visualization of neurovascular relationships in the posterior fossa: technique and clinical application. J Neurosurg 2004;100:1025–35

    PubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Stankiewicz JM,
    2. Glanz BI,
    3. Healy BC,
    4. et al

    . Brain MRI lesion load at 1.5T and 3T versus clinical status in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2011;21. e50–56

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Stobo DB,
    2. Lindsay RS,
    3. Connell J,
    4. et al

    . Initial experience of 3 Tesla versus conventional field strength magnetic resonance imaging of small functioning pituitary tumours. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2011;75:673–77

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Ross JS

    . The high-field-strength curmudgeon. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:168–69

    FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Frayne R,
    2. Goodyear BG,
    3. Dickhoff P,
    4. et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla: challenges and advantages in clinical neurological imaging. Invest Radiol 2003;38:385–401

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Willinek WA,
    2. Gieseke J,
    3. von Falkenhausen M,
    4. et al

    . Sensitivity encoding (SENSE) for high spatial resolution time-of-flight MR angiography of the intracranial arteries at 3.0 T. Rofo 2004;176:21–26

    PubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Pattany PM

    . 3T MR imaging: the pros and cons. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:1455–56

    FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Schwindt W,
    2. Kugel H,
    3. Bachmann R,
    4. et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging protocols for examination of the neurocranium at 3 T. Eur Radiol 2003;13:2170–79

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Benjamini Y,
    2. Yekutieli D

    . The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat 2001;29:1165–88

    CrossRefWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Leal PR,
    2. Hermier M,
    3. Froment JC,
    4. et al

    . Preoperative demonstration of the neurovascular compression characteristics with special emphasis on the degree of compression, using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective study, with comparison to surgical findings, in 100 consecutive patients who underwent microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010;152:817–25. Epub 2010 Jan 28

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Tanrikulu L,
    2. Hastreiter P,
    3. Richer G,
    4. et al

    . Virtual neuroendoscopy: MRI-based three-dimensional visualization of the cranial nerves in the posterior cranial fossa. Br J Neurosurg 2008;22:207–12

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Hastreiter P,
    2. Naraghi R,
    3. Tomandl B,
    4. et al

    . 3D-visualization and registration for neurovascular compression syndrome analysis. In: MICCAI ‘02 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention-Part I. London, UK: Springer-Verlag; 2002;5:396–403
24. 24.↵
    1. Willinek WA,
    2. Schild HH

    . Clinical advantages of 3.0 T MRI over 1.5 T. Eur J Radiol 2008;65:2–14

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Schmitz BL,
    2. Aschoff AJ,
    3. Hoffmann MH,
    4. et al

    . Advantages and pitfalls in 3T MR brain imaging: a pictorial review. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2229–37

    FREE Full Text
26. 26.↵
    1. Tanenbaum LN

    . Clinical 3T MR imaging: mastering the challenges. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006;14:1–15

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Leal PR,
    2. Hermier M,
    3. Souza MA,
    4. et al

    . Visualization of vascular compression of the trigeminal nerve with high-resolution 3T MRI: a prospective study comparing preoperative imaging analysis to surgical findings in 40 consecutive patients who underwent microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia. Neurosugery 2011;69:15–26

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Willinek WA,
    2. Born M,
    3. Simon B,
    4. et al

    . Time-of-flight MR angiography: comparison of 3.0-T imaging and 1.5-T imaging—initial experience. Radiology 2003;229:913–20

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    1. Al-Kwifi O,
    2. Emery DJ,
    3. Wilman AH

    . Vessel contrast at three Tesla in time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography of the intracranial and carotid arteries. Magn Reson Imaging 2002;20:181–87

    CrossRefPubMed