Keywords:
Musculoskeletal bone, MR, Education, Normal variants, Tissue characterisation
Authors:
C. D. O. Mira1, M. Ataíde2, M. H. Valentim2, P. D. Afonso3; 1Loures/PT, 2Lisboa/PT, 3Lisbon/PT
DOI:
10.26044/essr2019/P-0112
References
1.
Chan BY,
Gill KG,
Rebsamen SL,
Nguyen JC.
MR Imaging of Pediatric Bone Marrow.
RadioGraphics.
2016; 36:1911–1930.
2.
Laor T,
Jaramillo D.
MR Imaging Insights into Skeletal Maturation: What Is Normal?.
Radiology.
2009; 250: 28–38.
3.
Burdiles A,
Babyn PS.
Pediatric Bone Marrow MR Imaging.
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am.
2009; 17: 391–409.
4.
Mirowitz SA,
Apicella P,
Reinus WR.
MR imaging of bone marrow lesions: relative conspicuousness on T1-weighted,
fat-suppressed T2-weighted,
and STIR images.
AJR Am J Roentgenol.
1994; 162:215—21.
5.
Herrmann J,
Krstin N,
Schoennagel BP,
et al.
Age-related distribution of vertebral bone-marrow diffusivity.
Eur J Radiol.
2012; 81 (12): 4046–4049.
6.
Kellenberger JC.
Pitfalls in paediatric musculoskeletal imaging.
Pediatr Radiol (2009) 39 (Suppl 3):S372–S381
7.
Boavida P,
Muller LS,
Rosendahl K.
Magnetic resonance imaging of the immature skeleton.
Acta Radiol.
2013; 54: 1007
8.
Zbojniewicz A,
Laor T.
Focal periphyseal edema (FOPE) zone on MRI of the adolescent knee: a potentially painful manifestation of physiologic physeal fusion? Pediatric imaging.
Am J Roentgen