Objective: To compare contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of vascularization of hydroxyapatite orbital implants.
Methods: Ten patients who underwent monthly contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging following implantation were analyzed. The two modalities were compared according to their ability to visualize the progress of vascularization at monthly intervals.
Results: There were no differences in the findings shown by these two methods. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound provided better visualization of the dynamic process of vascularization than contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. There were no significant differences in the areas and the time to completion of fibrovascular ingrowth observed by contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, indicating that the findings of these two examinations were consistently similar.
Conclusions: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is useful for the assessment of vascularization of hydroxyapatite orbital implants and provides better visualization of the dynamic process than contrast-enhanced MRI.
Keywords: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; Contrast-enhanced ultrasound; Detection; Hydroxyapatite; Vascularization.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.