HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Choi, S.-H. Articles by Mattrey, R. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Choi, S.-H. Articles by Mattrey, R. F. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Model to Quantify Lymph Node Enhancement on Indirect Sonographic Lymphography

¹ Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, 200 W Arbor Dr., San Diego, CA 92103.

View larger version (109K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. —Photograph of experimental setup shows rabbit positioned in support cradle. Injected leg was inserted into roller pump holder and massaged toward popliteal fossa, and 13-MHz transducer was positioned over popliteal lymph node and mechanically fixed in position during all 12 massages after each injection.

View larger version (84K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2A. —Popliteal lymph node in rabbit. Sonograms of popliteal lymph node obtained before (A) and after (B) second 30-sec massage after administration of 1 mL of contrast material into right footpad. Note that hypoechoic lymph node (arrowheads, A) seen before contrast enhancement is markedly enhanced (arrow, B) after contrast agent is administered.

View larger version (86K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2B. —Popliteal lymph node in rabbit. Sonograms of popliteal lymph node obtained before (A) and after (B) second 30-sec massage after administration of 1 mL of contrast material into right footpad. Note that hypoechoic lymph node (arrowheads, A) seen before contrast enhancement is markedly enhanced (arrow, B) after contrast agent is administered.

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. —Graph shows baseline-adjusted lymph node enhancement expressed as gray levels (0-255) observed on first frame after first massage after 1 mL of contrast administration in footpad. Each agent was evaluated in eight legs. SEM = standard error of mean.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. —Graph shows ability to extract additional contrast material from injection site after subsequent massages to reenhance lymph node as function of massage number. Effect of massage number on baseline-adjusted lymph node enhancement in gray levels (0-255) was statistically significant for all agents. SEM = standard error of mean.

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5A. —Graphs of lymph node enhancement. Graphs show comparison of baseline-adjusted lymph node enhancement in gray levels (0-255) achieved with same agents D and E (A) and F and G (B) as function of massage number to assess reproducibility of model. Agent D (dotted line, A) is statistically similar to agent E (solid line, A), and agent F (dotted line, B) is statistically similar to agent G (solid line, B). SEM = standard error of mean.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5B. —Graphs of lymph node enhancement. Graphs show comparison of baseline-adjusted lymph node enhancement in gray levels (0-255) achieved with same agents D and E (A) and F and G (B) as function of massage number to assess reproducibility of model. Agent D (dotted line, A) is statistically similar to agent E (solid line, A), and agent F (dotted line, B) is statistically similar to agent G (solid line, B). SEM = standard error of mean.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati