Research paper: Association - CranialVenousDrainage/MS

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

Postby Jugular » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:57 pm

Malden wrote:
Jugular wrote:...
I was more interested in your comments on the different protocols used for blood flow analysis in the Dutch study and the sample we have from Haacke.
...

They both use same machine, GE 3.0 Tesla MRI system:
False Creek Healthcare Centre wrote:The 3.0T MRI, used in the newest and most advanced clinical applications, produces images faster and with unprecedented detail.

•State of the art technology
•Double the magnetic field of the 1.5 Tesla MRI
•3T adds certainty to the diagnosis
•Detects diseases that can not be seen with 1.5T
•The highest resolution scanner available for clinical use in the world today
•Key to minimally invasive therapies
•Radiation free

and the phase-contrast flow quantification with the same velocity encoding: 50 cm/s.


I was more interested in the flow quantitative analysis. The methodology in the Dutch study looked at flow in the deep cerebral veins and straight sinus, whereas the Haacke methodology looks at flow through all the cerebral draining veins at two locations - upper and lower neck.

Why? There is no discussion as to why this methodology was employed vs. Haacke's, of which I presume the authors were aware.

Of uncertain import as well is that 19 of the MS volunteers were RR and 1 PP. I wonder why they didn't use an even distribution of all three types? They do not comment on any differences with their one PP patient.
User avatar
Jugular
Family Elder
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby malden » Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:49 am

Jugular wrote:I was more interested in the flow quantitative analysis. The methodology in the Dutch study looked at flow in the deep cerebral veins and straight sinus, whereas the Haacke methodology looks at flow through all the cerebral draining veins at two locations - upper and lower neck.

Why? There is no discussion as to why this methodology was employed vs. Haacke's, of which I presume the authors were aware.
...


I try to point that methodology and tools used in the flow quantitative analysis are the same. Different is that in Haacke material he analyses a lot of veins and arteries in many locations when he quantify the flow. Dutch study restrict they attention to flow in the deep cerebral veins and straight sinus only. That's because they are trying to find not any reflux, but "reflux in the brain". And only reflux eventual founded in deep cerebral veins and straight sinus can prove "reflux in the brain" theory, because only those veins are draining just a brain directly.
malden
 

Previous

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users