| 方文静,马桂凤,朱雯,王欣,徐灵菲,齐永涛,林秀梅.声触诊弹性成像评估生物反馈电刺激治疗初产妇腹直肌分离效果[J].中国医学影像技术,2024,40(4):570~574 |
| 声触诊弹性成像评估生物反馈电刺激治疗初产妇腹直肌分离效果 |
| Sound touch elastography for assessing effect of biofeedback electrical stimulation for treating primipara with diastasis rectus abdominis |
| 投稿时间：2023-12-19 修订日期：2024-01-25 |
| DOI：10.13929/j.issn.1003-3289.2024.04.019 |
| 中文关键词: 产次 腹直肌 超声检查 电刺激 前瞻性研究 |
| 英文关键词:parity rectus abdominis ultrasonography electric stimulation prospective studies |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 338 |
| 全文下载次数: 339 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 观察声触诊弹性成像(STE)评估生物反馈电刺激治疗初产妇腹直肌分离(DRA)效果的价值。方法 前瞻性纳入98例DRA初产妇,根据是否接受生物反馈电刺激治疗将其分为治疗组(n=48)及未治疗组(n=50);以50名健康未孕育龄期女性为对照组。比较治疗组与未治疗组产后42天与产后10周(即治疗1个疗程后)腹直肌间距离(IRD1/IRD2)、6个位点杨氏模量(E1/E2)及其均值(Emean-1/Emean-2);以Pearson相关分析评估治疗组Emean-3(Emean-2与Emean-1差值)与IRD3(IRD2与IRD1差值)的相关性。结果 治疗组IRD2显著低于IRD1(P＜0.01);未治疗组IRD2与IRD1差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。治疗组IRD3、Emean-2、Emean-3及6个位点E2均高于未治疗组(P均＜0.05);治疗组与未治疗组6个位点E1差异无统计学意义(P均＞0.05)且均低于对照组(P均＜0.05)。治疗组Emean-3与IRD3呈高度正相关(r=0.823,P＜0.01)。结论 STE可有效评估生物反馈电刺激治疗早期初产妇DRA效果。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To observe the value of sound touch elastography (STE) for assessing effectiveness of biofeedback electrical stimulation for treating primipara with diastasis rectus abdominis (DRA). Methods Totally 98 primiparas were prospective enrolled and divided into therapeutic group (n=48) and non-therapeutic group (n=50) according to whether the biofeedback electrical stimulation performed or not. Meanwhile, 50 healthy non-pregnant women of childbearing period were taken as controls (control group). The inter-rectus distance (IRD1/IRD2), Young's modulus (E1/E2) at 6 sites and the mean value of E1/E2 (Emean-1/Emean-2) 42 days after and 10 weeks after delivery (after one-course treatment) were compared between groups, respectively. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to explore the correlations of Emean-3 (difference between Emean-2 and Emean-1) and IRD3 (difference between IRD2 and IRD1) in treatment group. Results In therapeutic group, IRD2 was significantly lower than IRD1 (P＜0.01). No significant difference was found between IRD1 and IRD2 in non-therapeutic group (P＞0.05). IRD3, Emean-2, Emean-3 and 6 site-E2 in therapeutic group were all higher than those in non-therapeutic group (all P＜0.05). E1 at 6 sites in therapeutic group were not significantly different with those in non-therapeutic group (all P＞0.05), which were all lower than those in control group (all P＜0.05). Emean-3 was highly positively correlated with IRD3 in therapeutic group (r=0.823, P＜0.01). Conclusion STE could effectively evaluate the early efficacy of biofeedback electrical stimulation for treating primiparas with DRA. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
