中国医药导刊
中國醫藥導刊
중국의약도간
CHINESE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GUIDE
2015年
1期
13-14
,共2页
超声弹性成像%磁共振成像%肝纤维化
超聲彈性成像%磁共振成像%肝纖維化
초성탄성성상%자공진성상%간섬유화
Ultrasound elastosonography%Magnetic resonance imaging%Liver fibrosis
目的：观探讨磁共振成像（MRI）与超声弹性成像（UE）在肝纤维化诊断价值差异。方法：选取112例慢性乙肝患者并采用超声弹性成像、磁共振检查和超声引导下穿刺活检术，以病理检查作为诊断金标准，评估UE、MRI对肝纤维化的诊断价值。结果：UE对肝纤维化的诊断灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和准确度为92.00%、83.78%、92.00%、83.78%和89.29%；而MRI则为80.00%、89.19%、93.75%、68.75%和83.04%，两者灵敏度和阴性预测值比较差异具有显著性（P＜0.05），UE诊断准确率较高，但比较无显著性（P＞0.05）。结论：超声弹性成像对肝纤维化诊断灵敏度和准确率优于磁共振成像。
目的：觀探討磁共振成像（MRI）與超聲彈性成像（UE）在肝纖維化診斷價值差異。方法：選取112例慢性乙肝患者併採用超聲彈性成像、磁共振檢查和超聲引導下穿刺活檢術，以病理檢查作為診斷金標準，評估UE、MRI對肝纖維化的診斷價值。結果：UE對肝纖維化的診斷靈敏度、特異度、暘性預測值、陰性預測值和準確度為92.00%、83.78%、92.00%、83.78%和89.29%；而MRI則為80.00%、89.19%、93.75%、68.75%和83.04%，兩者靈敏度和陰性預測值比較差異具有顯著性（P＜0.05），UE診斷準確率較高，但比較無顯著性（P＞0.05）。結論：超聲彈性成像對肝纖維化診斷靈敏度和準確率優于磁共振成像。
목적：관탐토자공진성상（MRI）여초성탄성성상（UE）재간섬유화진단개치차이。방법：선취112례만성을간환자병채용초성탄성성상、자공진검사화초성인도하천자활검술，이병리검사작위진단금표준，평고UE、MRI대간섬유화적진단개치。결과：UE대간섬유화적진단령민도、특이도、양성예측치、음성예측치화준학도위92.00%、83.78%、92.00%、83.78%화89.29%；이MRI칙위80.00%、89.19%、93.75%、68.75%화83.04%，량자령민도화음성예측치비교차이구유현저성（P＜0.05），UE진단준학솔교고，단비교무현저성（P＞0.05）。결론：초성탄성성상대간섬유화진단령민도화준학솔우우자공진성상。
Objective: To study the comparison on liver fibrosis diagnosis value of ultrasound elastosonography(UE) and magnetic resonance imaging(MRI).Methods:112 cases of chronic hepatitis B patients were selected, all were given ultrasound elastosonography, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound guided biopsy, pathologic examination was as the diagnostic golden standard, the diagnosis value of UE, MRI in liver fibrosis were evaluated.Results:The sensitivity, specificity positive predictive value,negative predictive value and accuracy of liver fibrosis UE diagnosis were 92.00%, 83.78%, 92.00%, 83.78% and 89.29%,While MRI were 80.00%,89.19%,93.75%,68.75% and 83.04%,the sensitivity and negative predictive value compared with significant difference(P<0.05),UE diagnosis accuracy was higher,but had no significant (P>0.05).Conclusion:The sensitivity and accuracy of ultrasound elastosonography for liver fibrosis diagnosis are better than magnetic resonance imaging.
