AJR ARRS Membership
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Caldemeyer, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Broderick, L. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Caldemeyer, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Broderick, L. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 171, 1501-1504, Copyright © 1998 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Topical contrast-enhanced CT and MR dacryocystography: imaging the lacrimal drainage apparatus of healthy volunteers

KS Caldemeyer, SM Stockberger Jr and LS Broderick
Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis 46202-5253, USA.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of administering topical contrast material during helical CT dacryocystography and topical saline solution during MR dacryocystography to reveal the lacrimal drainage apparatus. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fourteen healthy volunteers underwent helical CT dacryocystography, MR dacryocystography, or both. Eight of the 14 subjects underwent both techniques; three subjects underwent MR dacryocystography, and three subjects underwent CT dacryocystography. Images were evaluated by two radiologists for degree of visualization of components of the lacrimal drainage apparatus. Each volunteer was questioned about the relative discomfort of contrast material and saline solution administration. RESULTS: The lacrimal drainage system was seen on both CT dacryocystography and MR dacryocystography. CT dacryocystography allowed two-dimensional and three-dimensional reconstructions on which adjacent bone anatomy could be seen. The MR dacryocystography two-dimensional reconstructions and maximum intensity projections also showed the drainage apparatus. However, smaller drainage structures were more consistently seen on CT dacryocystography than on MR dacryocystography. Saline solution was more comfortable than contrast material. CONCLUSION: CT dacryocystography and MR dacryocystography reproducibly and non-invasively revealed the lacrimal drainage apparatus and allowed a better physiologic examination than cannulation dacryocystography. MR dacryocystography can be performed without administration of ionizing radiation or contrast material, but this technique cannot show adjacent bone anatomy and less consistently showed the smaller drainage structures than CT dacryocystography.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch OphthalmolHome page
B. Yazici and Z. Yazici
Frequency of the Common Canaliculus: A Radiological Study
Arch Ophthalmol, October 1, 2000; 118(10): 1381 - 1385.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Neuroradiol.Home page
L. Manfrè, M. de Maria, E. Todaro, A. Mangiameli, F. Ponte, and R. Lagalla
MR Dacryocystography: Comparison with Dacryocystography and CT Dacryocystography
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., June 1, 2000; 21(6): 1145 - 1150.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.