High diagnostic performance of time-resolved MR angiography in spinal arteriovenous shunts

Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of 3D contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography versus digital subtraction angiography in spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas

“…Our subanalysis of the patients in whom both preoperative imaging modalities were performed further highlighted the finding that MRA was more accurate, with MRA accuracy of 78.6% versus DSA accuracy of 57.1%. The MRA accuracy of localization of SDAVFs was described by Cao et al 17 at 91.7% (n = 44), by Lindenholz et al 18 at 81% (n = 53), by Saraf-Lavi et al 11 at 73% (n = 20), by Mull et al 24 at 73.7% (n = 19), by Zhou et al 25 at 75% (n = 20), by Kannath et al 26 at 72.7% (n = 11), by Koizumi et al 27 at 67% (n = 18), and by Amarouche et al 28 at 63.6% (n = 33). Our results suggest that MRA is not only an adjunct for SDAVF diagnosis but also a primary imaging technique to evaluate patients with suspicion of SDAVFs.…”

“…Our results suggest that MRA is not only an adjunct for SDAVF diagnosis but also a primary imaging technique to evaluate patients with suspicion of SDAVFs. Lindenholz et al 18 and Cao et al 17 in evaluating 53 patients and 44 patients, respectively, with possible SDAVFs reported that MRA correctly localized SDAVFs in 81% and 91.7% of their cases. However, they compared the accuracy of MRA to DSA based solely on imaging results, with the spinal DSA serving as the reference standard.…”

“…[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] There are a limited number of studies that have evaluated the accuracy of MRA in localizing SDAVF, but often these studies use DSA as the reference standard. 17,18 As such, direct comparison of these two imaging modalities is limited if one of the studies is being used as the reference standard. Therefore, we were interested in evaluating the accuracy of these two index tests when using SDAVF localized by surgery as the reference standard.…”