This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Rosenthal, D. Articles by Lamis, P. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Rosenthal, D. Articles by Lamis, P. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comparison of Aortography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

M. Annette Seagraves

John H. Bisese

Michael D. Clark

Pano A. Lamis

During a three-year period 51 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) computed tomography (CT) and aortography to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and role of each study.

Ct and MRI were 100% accurate in establishing the diagnosis of AAA, whereas aortography did not visualize the AAA in 3 patients nor the associated iliac aneurysms in 3 other patients. MRI and aortography were superior to CT in evaluating the celiac, superior mesenteric, and renal arteries.

CT should be the screening method of choice to identify AAA, and when operation is contemplated, aortography will best demonstrate the mesenteric and renal anatomy. If aortography is deemed too hazardous, MRI will yield the most information and should then be the noninvasive test of choice.

Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Vol. 25, No. 3, 203-209 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/153857449102500307


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?