Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced MRI for the assessment of vascularization of hydroxyapatite orbital implants ★★★

ObjectiveTo compare contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of vascularization of hydroxyapatite orbital implants.MethodsTen 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.ResultsThere 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.ConclusionsContrast-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.