高红,徐文坚,郝大鹏,段峰.64层螺旋CT血管成像技术对主动脉夹层的显示能力[J].中国医学影像技术,2007,23(7):1012~1015
64层螺旋CT血管成像技术对主动脉夹层的显示能力
Detection ability of 64-slice spiral CT angiography on aortic dissections
投稿时间:2007-01-19  修订日期:2007-06-23
DOI:
中文关键词:  体层摄影术,X线计算机  血管造影  主动脉夹层
英文关键词:Tomography, X-ray computed  Angiography  Aortic dissections
基金项目:
作者单位E-mail
高红 解放军第八一医院放射科,江苏 南京 210003  
徐文坚 青岛大学附属医院放射科,山东 青岛 266003 cjr.xuwenjian@vip.163.com 
郝大鹏 青岛大学附属医院放射科,山东 青岛 266003  
段峰 青岛大学附属医院放射科,山东 青岛 266003  
摘要点击次数: 2244
全文下载次数: 1091
中文摘要:
      目的 评价MPR、CPR、VR、MIP和SSD后处理技术对主动脉夹层的破口、内膜瓣和真、假腔的显示能力。方法 39例拟诊为主动脉病变的患者作为本课题的研究对象,采用团注追踪法对所有患者行64层螺旋CT增强扫描,以3.5~4 ml/s速率分别注射100 ml非离子型对比剂和40~50 ml生理盐水。39例病人均行MPR、CPR、VR、MIP和SSD重组,分别计算各种方法对破口、内膜瓣和真、假腔的显示率,以及显示破口的敏感性、特异性和准确性。结果 MPR、CPR、VR和SSD对破口的显示率分别为80.9%、85.7%、19%和9.5%,对内膜瓣的显示率均为100%。MIP不能直接显示破口和内膜瓣。MPR、CPR、VR和SSD对真、假腔的显示率均为100%,MIP为76.2%。结论 MPR和CPR对主动脉夹层显示的最好,VR和SSD次之,MIP最差。MPR 和CPR显示主动脉夹层破口的敏感性、特异性、准确性明显高于VR和SSD。
英文摘要:
      Objective To determine the value of MPR, CPR, VR, SSD, MIP technique in detecting tear entry, the extent of intimal flap, and the true and false channel of dissection. Methods Thirty-nine patients with suspected aortic diseases were evaluated with SIEMENS 64-slice CT scanner. All of the scans were performed with the bolus tracking of 100 ml nonionic contrast material followed by flushing 40-50 ml of physiologic saline solution at 3.5-4 ml/s. MPR, CPR, VR, SSD, MIP were reformatted from raw data in all patients. The demonstration rate of each reconstruction on tear entry, the extent of intimal flap, and the true and false channel of dissection was calculated, as well as the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each reformation for entry tear. Results The demonstration rate of MPR, CPR, VR, and SSD on tear entry was 80.9%, 85.7%, 19%, and 9.5%, respectively. And for intimal flap was 100% respectively. MIP didn't demonstrate the tear entry and intimal flap. The demonstration rate of MPR, CPR, VR, and SSD on the true and false channel was 100% respectively, and MIP was 76.2%. Conclusion MPR, CPR, VR, SSD, and MIP are useful in evaluating aortic dissection. MPR and CPR are superior to MIP.
查看全文  查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器