Table 3.
Comparisons of qualitative and quantitative parameters between the two techniques in TAO and HC groups
| TAO | HC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Dixon | Fat-sat | p | Dixon | Fat-sat | p |
| Qualitive | ||||||
| Overall image quality | 3.81 ± 0.40 | 3.00 ± 0.41 | <0.001a | 3.80 ± 0.56 | 3.20 ± 0.41 | 0.007a |
| FS uniformity | 3.89 ± 0.31 | 2.78 ± 0.42 | <0.001a | 3.93 ± 0.26 | 2.73 ± 0.59 | 0.001a |
| Quantitative | ||||||
| EOM-SIR | 3.50 ± 1.42 | 2.95 ± 1.07 | <0.001a | 2.06 ± 0.32 | 1.78 ± 0.26 | 0.001a |
EOM, extraocular muscle; FS, fat suppression; Fat-sat, fat saturation; HC, healthy control; SIR, signal intensity ratio; TAO, thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy.
The numeric data were reported as the mean ± standard deviation.
a
Statistical significance is indicated by p values less than 0.05.