Purpose To evaluate the SNR and CNR performance of 0.05 mmol/kg gadoxetic acid and 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine for dynamic and hepatobiliary phase imaging. In addition, flip angles (FA) that maximize relative contrast-to-noise performance for hepatobiliary phase imaging were determined. Materials and Methods A cross-over study in ten volunteers was performed using each agent. Imaging was performed at 3T with a 32-channel phased-array coil using breath-held 3D spoiled gradient echo sequences for SNR and CNR analysis, and for FA optimization of hepatobiliary phase imaging. Results Gadobenate dimeglumine (0.1 mmol/kg) had superior SNR performance during the dynamic phase, statistically significant for portal vein and hepatic vein in the portal venous and venous phase (for all, p<0.05) despite twice the approved dose of gadoxetic acid (0.05 mmol/kg), while gadoxetic acid had superior SNR performance during the hepatobiliary phase. Optimal FA’s for hepatobiliary phase imaging using gadoxetic acid and gadobenate dimeglumine were 25–30° and 25–30° for relative contrast liver vs. muscle (surrogate for non-hepatocellular tissues), and 45° and 20° (relative contrast liver vs. biliary structures), respectively. Conclusion Gadobenate dimeglumine may be preferable for applications that require dynamic phase imaging only, while gadoxetic acid may be preferable when the hepatobiliary phase is clinically important. Hepatobiliary phase imaging with both agents benefits from flip angle optimization.

Insufficiency fractures of the pelvis, sacrum, spine, and long bones are painful, debilitating, and are common consequences of osteoporosis. Conventional treatment for these fractures varies from conservative therapy to surgery with plate and screw fixation. The former fails to address the underlying problem of fracture and frequently does not alleviate symptoms, while the latter is invasive and not always possible in older populations with low bone density and numerous co-morbidities. Osseous augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) has been used for over two decades to treat fractures related to osteoporosis, but has not been commonly used to treat fractures outside of the vertebral bodies. Osseous augmentation with PMMA is an image-guided procedure and various techniques have been utilized to treat fracture in different locations. We describe various techniques for image-guided osseous augmentation and treatment of insufficiency fractures with bothPMMA and allograft bone for fractures of the pelvis including sacrum, acetabulum, pubic symphysis, pubic rami ilium; appendicular skeleton including distal radius, proximal femur, and vertebral body. We also describe the potential risks and complications associated with percutaneous treatment of insufficiency fractures and techniques to avoid the pitfalls of the various procedures. We will present the process for patient follow-up and data regarding the pre- and postprocedure pain response in patients undergoing treatment for pelvic insufficiency fractures.

The injection of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) is a minimally invasive image-guided procedure that is typically used to treat vertebral body fractures due to osteoporosis or neoplastic involvement. The injection of PMMA into various other locations including the sacrum, acetabulum, pedicles, femur and tibia has been reported previously, and these procedures have, overall, been highly effective at alleviating pain and discomfort. Although the injection of PMMA into the vertebral body is a very common procedure that has been performed for over 2 decades for the percutaneous treatment of vertebral body fractures, the percutaneous injection of PMMA has not been reported in the English literature as treatment for superior pubic ramus fractures. We report the percutaneous treatment of an acute superior pubic ramus fracture and of a chronic insufficiency fracture of the superior pubic ramus using a parasymphyseal approach to access the region of injury.

Purpose To evaluate the gender and racial diversity of plenary session speakers in the annual meetings of Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) over 2016 to 2020. Materials and methods The brochures of the SAR annual meetings were reviewed for plenary session speakers and titles. Publicly available institutional profiles and social media were reviewed by the investigator in order to infer gender and race. Gender assessments were men, women, transgender men, transgender women or gender non-binary. Race was classified as White, Black or African American, American Indians and Alaskan Natives, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander and Multiracial. Statistical analysis was performed using chi square and T-tests. Results Based on self-reported data, the SAR has 64% male and 36% female members. Over 2016–2020, plenary session speakers were more likely to be men [69.6% (183/263)] than women [30.4% (80/263)] (p-value = 0.0007). No speakers could be reliably identified as transgender, gender non-binary or gender expansive. In 2016, there were 24% women plenary speakers. This proportion was 28% in 2017, 33% in 2018 and 36% in 2019, and 30% in 2020. When assessing racial distribution, white speakers accounted for the majority of plenary speakers, ranging from 61 to 78%. Asians speakers accounted for 22 to 35%. There were no Black and African American, American Indian & Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian & Pacific Islander plenary speakers (0%). Multiracial speakers were represented from 2018 to 2020, accounting for 2–4% speakers (p-value < 0.0001). Conclusions Plenary speakers at SAR Annual Meetings from 2016–2020 were more likely to be men, but with the proportion of women presenters increasing over time. White speakers represented the majority of plenary session speakers, followed by Asians. No plenary session speakers were identified as Black or African American or Native Americans. Graphical Abstract