000289448 001__ 289448
000289448 005__ 20250408145018.0
000289448 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1007/s00256-024-04671-x
000289448 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:38607418
000289448 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0364-2348
000289448 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1432-2161
000289448 037__ $$aDKFZ-2024-00770
000289448 041__ $$aEnglish
000289448 082__ $$a610
000289448 1001_ $$aBayer, Thomas$$b0
000289448 245__ $$aComparison of 3T and 7T magnetic resonance imaging for direct visualization of finger flexor pulley rupture: an ex-vivo study.
000289448 260__ $$aNew York$$bSpringer$$c2024
000289448 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000289448 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000289448 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1726744131_16238
000289448 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000289448 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000289448 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000289448 500__ $$a2024 Nov;53(11):2469-2476
000289448 520__ $$aTo compare image quality and diagnostic performance of 3T and 7T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for direct depiction of finger flexor pulleys A2, A3 and A4 before and after artificial pulley rupture in an ex-vivo model using anatomic preparation as reference.30 fingers from 10 human cadavers were examined at 3T and 7T before and after being subjected to iatrogenic pulley rupture. MRI protocols were comparable in duration, both lasting less than 22 min. Two experienced radiologists evaluated the MRIs. Image quality was graded according to a 4-point Likert scale. Anatomic preparation was used as gold standard.In comparison, 7T versus 3T had a sensitivity and specificity for the detection of A2, A3 and A4 pulley lesions with 100% vs. 95%, respectively 98% vs. 100%. In the assessment of A3 pulley lesions sensitivity of 7T was superior to 3T MRI (100% vs. 83%), whereas specificity was lower (95% vs. 100%). Image quality assessed before and after iatrogenic rupture was comparable with 2.74 for 7T and 2.61 for 3T. Visualization of the A3 finger flexor pulley before rupture creation was significantly better for 7 T (p < 0.001). Interobserver variability showed substantial agreement at 3T (κ = 0.80) and almost perfect agreement at 7T (κ = 0.90).MRI at 3T allows a comparable diagnostic performance to 7T for direct visualization and characterization of finger flexor pulleys before and after rupture, with superiority of 7T MRI in the visualization of the normal A3 pulley.
000289448 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315$$a315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)$$cPOF4-315$$fPOF IV$$x0
000289448 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo02.dkfz.de
000289448 650_7 $$2Other$$a3 Tesla
000289448 650_7 $$2Other$$a7 Tesla
000289448 650_7 $$2Other$$aClimbing
000289448 650_7 $$2Other$$aFinger flexor pulleys
000289448 650_7 $$2Other$$aHigh field MRI
000289448 7001_ $$aBächter, Lilly$$b1
000289448 7001_ $$aLutter, Christoph$$b2
000289448 7001_ $$aJanka, Rolf$$b3
000289448 7001_ $$aUder, Michael$$b4
000289448 7001_ $$aSchöffel, Völker$$b5
000289448 7001_ $$aRoemer, Frank W$$b6
000289448 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)054fd7a5195b75b11fbdc5c360276011$$aNagel, Armin M$$b7$$udkfz
000289448 7001_ $$aHeiss, Rafael$$b8
000289448 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1461957-X$$a10.1007/s00256-024-04671-x$$n11$$p2469-2476$$tSkeletal radiology$$v53$$x0364-2348$$y2024
000289448 8564_ $$uhttps://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/289448/files/s00256-024-04671-x.pdf
000289448 8564_ $$uhttps://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/289448/files/s00256-024-04671-x.pdf?subformat=pdfa$$xpdfa
000289448 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:289448$$pVDB
000289448 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)054fd7a5195b75b11fbdc5c360276011$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b7$$kDKFZ
000289448 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF4-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF4$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vBildgebung und Radioonkologie$$x0
000289448 9141_ $$y2024
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)3002$$2StatID$$aDEAL Springer$$d2023-08-29$$wger
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)3002$$2StatID$$aDEAL Springer$$d2023-08-29$$wger
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS$$d2023-08-29
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline$$d2023-08-29
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List$$d2023-08-29
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0113$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded$$d2023-08-29
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection$$d2023-08-29
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0160$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEssential Science Indicators$$d2023-08-29
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine$$d2023-08-29
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bSKELETAL RADIOL : 2022$$d2023-08-29
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search$$d2023-08-29
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC$$d2023-08-29
000289448 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5$$d2023-08-29
000289448 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)E020-20160331$$kE020$$lE020 Med. Physik in der Radiologie$$x0
000289448 980__ $$ajournal
000289448 980__ $$aVDB
000289448 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)E020-20160331
000289448 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED