多模态超声成像联合磁共振对孕早期剖宫产术后瘢痕妊娠的诊断价值

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-7171.2022.05.005

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (1848 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要【目的】探讨多模态超声成像联合磁共振(MRI)对孕早期剖宫产术后瘢痕妊娠(CSP)的诊断价值。【方法】选取2017年1月至2020年12月经手术和病理证实为CSP的106例患者,术前均行多模态超声和MRI检查,对比两类影像检查方法及二者联合检测的诊断效能。【结果】106例CSP患者中,术前多模态超声诊断准确率89.6％(95/106),误诊11例;MRI诊断准确率91.5％(97/106),误诊9例;联合检查诊断准确率为97.2%(103/106),误诊3例。χ²检验显示多模态超声与MRI诊断准确率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);二者联合诊断效能优于单独诊断技术(P<0.05)。【结论】多模态超声和MRI对CSP诊断准确率无明显差异,联合检查对CSP诊断准确率高于二者单独应用,对CSP具有较高的诊断价值。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章

关键词 ：剖宫产术/副作用, 妊娠,异位/影像诊断, 瘢痕, 超声检查,产前/方法, 磁共振成像/方法

Abstract：【Objective】 To explore the diagnostic value of multimodal ultrasound imaging combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the early cesarean scars pregnancy (CSP). 【Methods】 A total of 106 patients with surgically and pathologically confirmed CSP from January 2017 to December 2020 were selected. All patients underwent multimodal ultrasound and MRI examination before surgery to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the two types of imaging indicators and their combined detection.【Results】 Among 106 CSP patients, the accuracy rate of multimodal ultrasound diagnosis was 89.6% (95/106), and 11 cases were misdiagnosed. The accuracy rate of MRI was 91.5% (97/106), and 9 cases were misdiagnosed. The accuracy rate of both combination diagnosis was 97.2% (103/106), and only 3 cases were misdiagnosed. The χ² test was used to compare the accuracy rate of the two imaging techniques and the combined diagnosis. The result showed there was no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy of multimode ultrasound and MRI (P>0.05). However, there was a difference between single diagnosis and combined diagnosis of multimode ultrasound and MRI (P<0.05). 【Conclusion】 There is no significant difference in the accuracy rate of CSP diagnosis between multimode ultrasound and MRI. However, the diagnostic accuracy rate of CSP with MRI combined multimode ultrasound diagnosis is higher than the two alone, which improves the diagnostic value for CSP.

Key words： Cesarean Section/AE Pregnancy, Ectopic/DG Cicatrix Ultrasonography, Prenatal/MT Magnetic Resonance Imaging/MT

收稿日期: 2022-03-16

中图分类号:

R719.8

基金资助:湖南省卫生健康委科研计划项目 (B2017199)

通讯作者: **E-mail:2457045622@qq.com

引用本文:

黎玲玲, 袁红霞, 王玲, 童立里, 曹虹, 郭黎漓, 朱云芳, 罗秀, 徐星, 李文中. 多模态超声成像联合磁共振对孕早期剖宫产术后瘢痕妊娠的诊断价值[J]. 医学临床研究, 2022, 39(5): 656-659.
LI Ling-ling, YUAN Hong-xia, WANG Ling, et al. Value of Multimodal Ultrasound Imaging Combined with MRI in the Diagnosis of Early Cesarean Scars Pregnancy. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL RESEARCH, 2022, 39(5): 656-659.

链接本文:

http://journal07.magtech.org.cn/yxlcyj/CN/10.3969/j.issn.1671-7171.2022.05.005 或 http://journal07.magtech.org.cn/yxlcyj/CN/Y2022/V39/I5/656

[1] 中华医学会妇产科学会分会.剖宫产术后子宫疤痕妊娠诊治专家共识[J].中华妇产科杂志, 2016, 51(8): 568-572.
[2] GONZALEZ N, TULANDI T. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review[J].J Minim Invasive Gynecol,2017,24(5):731-738.
[3] 朱亚芳,谭乳燕,解左平,等.超声联合MRI诊断剖宫产后子宫切口瘢痕处妊娠的价值研究[J].中国超声医学杂志,2021,37(2):190-193.
[4] VIALY,PETIGANT P,HOHLFELD P. Pregancy in a cesarean scar [J].Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol,2000,16(6):592-593.
[5] DIMASSI K,DOUIK F,DERBEL M,et al. Caesarean scar pregnancy: Early diagnosis and conservative management[J].J Obstet Gynaecol,2015,35(8):865-867.
[6] WONG W S F,FUNG W T.Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of cesarean scar defect[J].Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther,2018,7(3):104-107.
[7] IRCH P K, HOFFMANN E, RIFBJERG L C, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review of treatment studies[J].Fertil Steril,2016, 105(4):958-967.
[8] YU H Y, LUO H, ZHAO F M, et al. Successful selective reduction of a heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy in the second trimester:a case report and review of the literature[J].BMC Pregnancy Childbirth,2016, 16(1):380.
[9] SEKIGUCHI A, OKUDA N, KAWABATAL, et al. Ultrasound detection of lacunae-like image of a cesarean scar pregnancy in the first trimester[J].J Nippon Med Sch,2013,80(1):70-73.
[10] TAZION S, HAFEEZ M, MANZOOR R, et al.Ultrasound predictability of lower uterine segment cesarean section scar thickness[J].J Coll Physicians Surg Pak,2018,28(5):361-364.
[11] COK T, KALAYCI H, OZDEMIR H, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound-guided local methotrexate administration as the firstline treatment for cesarean scar pregnancy: Follow-up of 18 cases[J].J Obstet Gynaecol Res,2015, 41(5):803-808.
[12] CHIAPPA V,LEGGE A D,VALENTINI A L,et al. Agreement of two-dimensional and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging in assessment of parametrial infiltration in cervical cancer[J].Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol,2015, 45(4):459-469.
[13] 刘洁,崔稳丽,柴义青.三维彩超在评估剖宫产后子宫瘢痕部位妊娠中的应用[J].中国临床医学影像杂志,2018,29(2):118-120.
[14] 何慧,顾晗,何玲,等.磁共振对剖宫产瘢痕妊娠的诊断及临床价值[J].磁共振成像,2020,11(3):207-210.
[15] 刘亚静,石辛景,陈莉茹,等.MRI、超声测量瘢痕妊娠的瘢痕厚度与病理测量结果的相关性[J].放射学实践,2020,35(9):1161-1165.
[16] 叶敬志,袁国奇,刘海明,等.MRI联合经阴道超声对剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠的诊治指导价值[J].现代医用影像学,2020,29(5):797-802.
[17] HOFFMANN J, EXNER M, BREMICKER K, et al.Comparison of the lower uterine segment in pregnant women with and without previous cesarean section in 3T MRI [J].BMC Pregnancy Childbirth,2019,19(1):160.
[18] 梁艳玲,何嘉辉,汪劲松,等.经腹超声与MRI对瘢痕妊娠的诊断价值[J].中国CT和MRI杂志,2020,18(5):43-45.
[19] DUYGU KARA BOZKURT, MURAT BOZKURT, LEVENT SAHIN. Magnetic resonance imaging in addition to ultrasound in the diagnosis of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy[J].J Med Cases,2014,5(6):329-333.
[20] 李彩霞,常慧,贤金艳.MRI对剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠的诊断价值[J].中国医学影像学杂志,2013,21(7):552-554.
[21] 李心娜,张淑军,林云.三维超声与MRI对剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠的早期预测价值对比研究[J].中国医药导刊,2019,21(8):453-455.
[22] 胡晶晶,罗振凌.对比经阴道超声与MRI检查对剖宫产术后瘢痕妊娠的诊断价值研究[J].中国CT和MRI杂志,2022,3(20):111-125.