English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We evaluated magnetic susceptibility artifacts of nine types of vena cava filters in MR angiography (MRA) at 1.0T ex vivo in order to assess the filters' compatibility with MRA. Each filter (tulip filter, tulip MReye filter, stainless Greenfield filter, titanium Greenfield filter, TrapEase filter, Simon filter, LGM Vena-Tech filter, Antheor temporary filter, and Bird's nest filter) was inserted into an acrylic tube (20 or 25 mm in diameter, 15 or 30 cm in length). Gd-DTPA was poured into each tube at a concentration of 1/500 and each was placed in a water-filled container for imaging. We evaluated artifacts of the filters according to the following criteria: signal void beyond the tube, 3+; signal void within the tube but at more than one-half the diameter of the tube, 2+; and signal void within the tube but at less than one-half the diameter of the tube, 1+. We evaluated artifacts originating at the tip, intermediate portion, and distal end of the filters. We judged the artifacts as follows: tulip (3+, 3+, 3+); tulip MReye (2+, 1+, 1+); stainless Greenfield (2+, 1+, 2+); titanium Greenfield (1+, 1+, 1+); TrapEase (1+, 2+, 1+); Simon (2+, 2+, 1+); LGM (2+, 2+, 1+); Antheor (2+, 2+, 2+); and Bird's nest (3+, 3+, 3+). The numbers in parentheses refer to the degree of signal void at the tip, intermediate portion, and distal end of the filter, respectively. The tulip filter and Bird's nest filter made of 304 stainless steel caused extensive signal voids beyond the areas defined by the filters. The signal voids in the remaining seven filters were limited to within the tube. We concluded that seven of the nine filters were compatible with MRA ex vivo.

Artifacts of Vena Cava Filters ex vivo on MR Angiography