中国医学影像技术
中國醫學影像技術
중국의학영상기술
CHINESE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING TECHNOLOGY
2010年
3期
521-524
,共4页
体层摄影术,X线计算机%胆管造影术%胆胰管成像,磁共振%黄疸,梗阻性
體層攝影術,X線計算機%膽管造影術%膽胰管成像,磁共振%黃疸,梗阻性
체층섭영술,X선계산궤%담관조영술%담이관성상,자공진%황달,경조성
Tomography,X-ray computed%Cholangiography%Cholangiopancreatography,magnetic resonance%Jaundice,obstructive
目的 比较64排螺旋CT胰胆管三维成像与MR胆胰管成像(MRCP)对胰胆管梗阻性疾病的诊断价值.方法 对胰胆管梗阻性疾病患者36例行常规腹部增强CT及MRCP检查,将CT门静脉期图像分薄至层厚0.625 mm后,对肝内外胆管、胆囊及胰腺进行多平面重建(MPR),必要时加做曲面重建(CPR).根据手术病理或内镜检查结果,比较MPR(和CPR)与MRCP对病变的定位、定性诊断符合率.结果 MPR与MRCP对病变定位诊断的符合率分别为97.22%、94.44%;定性诊断符合率MPR为83.33%,部分病例加做CPR后提高至88.89%,MRCP定性诊断符合率为80.56%.两者定位、定性诊断符合率差异无统计学意义,诊断符合率一致性中等(Kappa=0.471).结论 MSCT胰胆管三维成像与MRCP都具有很高的诊断价值,而MSCT胰胆管成像更利于临床解读.
目的 比較64排螺鏇CT胰膽管三維成像與MR膽胰管成像(MRCP)對胰膽管梗阻性疾病的診斷價值.方法 對胰膽管梗阻性疾病患者36例行常規腹部增彊CT及MRCP檢查,將CT門靜脈期圖像分薄至層厚0.625 mm後,對肝內外膽管、膽囊及胰腺進行多平麵重建(MPR),必要時加做麯麵重建(CPR).根據手術病理或內鏡檢查結果,比較MPR(和CPR)與MRCP對病變的定位、定性診斷符閤率.結果 MPR與MRCP對病變定位診斷的符閤率分彆為97.22%、94.44%;定性診斷符閤率MPR為83.33%,部分病例加做CPR後提高至88.89%,MRCP定性診斷符閤率為80.56%.兩者定位、定性診斷符閤率差異無統計學意義,診斷符閤率一緻性中等(Kappa=0.471).結論 MSCT胰膽管三維成像與MRCP都具有很高的診斷價值,而MSCT胰膽管成像更利于臨床解讀.
목적 비교64배라선CT이담관삼유성상여MR담이관성상(MRCP)대이담관경조성질병적진단개치.방법 대이담관경조성질병환자36례행상규복부증강CT급MRCP검사,장CT문정맥기도상분박지층후0.625 mm후,대간내외담관、담낭급이선진행다평면중건(MPR),필요시가주곡면중건(CPR).근거수술병리혹내경검사결과,비교MPR(화CPR)여MRCP대병변적정위、정성진단부합솔.결과 MPR여MRCP대병변정위진단적부합솔분별위97.22%、94.44%;정성진단부합솔MPR위83.33%,부분병례가주CPR후제고지88.89%,MRCP정성진단부합솔위80.56%.량자정위、정성진단부합솔차이무통계학의의,진단부합솔일치성중등(Kappa=0.471).결론 MSCT이담관삼유성상여MRCP도구유흔고적진단개치,이MSCT이담관성상경리우림상해독.
Objective To compare the diagnostic value of 64-slice helical CT cholangiography and MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for pancreaticobiliary obstructive diseases. Methods Thirty-six patients with pathologically proved pancreaticobiliary obstruction or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) were examined with MRCP and routine enhanced CT scanning. CT row data of portal venous phase were reconstructed with 0.625 mm thickness and intervals. Then multiplanar reformation (MPR) of intra- and extrahepatic biliary duct, gallbladder and pancreas was generated, and curved planar reformation (CPR) was performed when necessary. The accuracy of MPR (and CPR) and MRCP in evaluating the site and nature of obstruction was compared. Results The accuracy of MPR and MRCP was 97.22% and 94.44% in evaluating the site of obstruction, respectively. In evaluating the nature of obstruction, the accuracy of MPR and MPCP was 83.33% and 80.56%, respectively, and the accuracy of MPR increased to 88.89% in combination with CPR in some patients. There was no statistical difference between the accuracy of MPR and MRCP in evaluating the site and nature of obstruction, while their diagnostic consistency was medium (Kappa=0.471). Conclusion Both MSCT cholangiography and MRCP have high diagnostic value in pancreaticobiliary obstruction, while the former gets some advantages in images review for clinicians.
