I've had two surgeons tell me that they simply won't use MRI's to evaluate the aorta. They both claim that the images derived from an MRA/MRI are not "clear" enough for them. A nurse called it a "dirty picture"... but not that kind
I don't think I've ever read that an MRI is less accurate than a CT scan, but rather more time consuming and expensive - which makes it a bad choice for emergencies. I've also read similar statistics for the sensitivity of an MRI in detecting dissections. My cardiologist doesn't seem to have a problem with a yearly MRI, and I think he'd let me know if it were a waste of money/time.
I've seen both CT and MRI films, and from first glance they look really similar... except the CT has a color 3d reconstruction that looks more textured than the MRI black and white 3d reconstruction.
What is the technical difference or challenge that makes an MRI so undesirable for serial scans when it comes to surgeons?
Is an MRA or MRI an acceptable modality to monitor the aorta on a serial kind of basis?
I don't think I've ever read that an MRI is less accurate than a CT scan, but rather more time consuming and expensive - which makes it a bad choice for emergencies. I've also read similar statistics for the sensitivity of an MRI in detecting dissections. My cardiologist doesn't seem to have a problem with a yearly MRI, and I think he'd let me know if it were a waste of money/time.
I've seen both CT and MRI films, and from first glance they look really similar... except the CT has a color 3d reconstruction that looks more textured than the MRI black and white 3d reconstruction.
What is the technical difference or challenge that makes an MRI so undesirable for serial scans when it comes to surgeons?
Is an MRA or MRI an acceptable modality to monitor the aorta on a serial kind of basis?
Last edited: