| 张紫微,王家维,曾琪,眭贺,李语,梁晨,黄曌殊,朱霞,宋玲玲.存在不同级别骶髂关节炎的强直性脊柱炎患者骶髂关节表观弥散系数与SPARCC评分的相关性[J].中国医学影像技术,2024,40(9):1390~1394 |
| 存在不同级别骶髂关节炎的强直性脊柱炎患者骶髂关节表观弥散系数与SPARCC评分的相关性 |
| Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient of sacroiliac joint and SPARCC score in ankylosing spondylitis patients with different grade sacroiliac joint inflammation |
| 投稿时间：2024-04-22 修订日期：2024-06-14 |
| DOI：10.13929/j.issn.1003-3289.2024.09.024 |
| 中文关键词: 脊柱炎,强直性 骶髂关节 磁共振成像 前瞻性研究 |
| 英文关键词:spondylitis, ankylosing sacroiliac joint magnetic resonance imaging prospective studies |
| 基金项目:贵州省科技计划项目(黔科合基础-ZK[2024]一般219)。 |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 503 |
| 全文下载次数: 200 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 观察存在不同级别骶髂关节炎的强直性脊柱炎(AS)患者骶髂关节表观弥散系数(ADC)与加拿大脊柱关节炎研究协会(SPARCC)评分的相关性。方法 前瞻性对35例AS患者(AS组)和30名健康对照者(HC组)行骶髂关节MR检查;判断AS组骶髂关节炎分级和SPARCC评分,根据有无骶髂关节面下骨髓水肿(BMO)将其分为BMO亚组(n=19)与非BMO亚组(n=16),测量其骶髂关节ADC(ADC骶髂);绘制受试者工作特征曲线,计算曲线下面积(AUC),分析ADC骶髂用于AS骶髂关节炎分级的效能;以Pearson相关分析观察不同骶髂关节炎分级AS患者ADC骶髂与SPARCC评分的相关性。结果 BMO亚组、非BMO亚组ADC骶髂分别为(4.85±1.44)×10－4及(4.30±0.64)×10－4 mm2/s,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)且均高于HC组 。以ADC骶髂评估AS骶髂关节炎的敏感度分别为49.44%、51.94%、73.06%及60.50%,特异度分别为75.00%、78.92%、83.33%及66.67%,AUC分别为0.613、0.712、0.837及0.645。AS骶髂关节炎Ⅱ、Ⅲ级患者ADC骶髂分别与SPARCC评分呈中-高度正相关(r=0.580、0.933,P均＜0.05),而Ⅰ、Ⅳ级患者ADC骶髂与SPARCC评分无明显相关(P均＞0.05)。结论 存在Ⅱ、Ⅲ级骶髂关节炎的AS患者的ADC骶髂与其SPARCC评分呈正相关;ADC骶髂可作为监测AS患者骶髂关节BMO的可靠定量参数。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To observe the correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of sacroiliac joint and spondyloarthritis research consortium of Canada (SPARCC) score in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients with different grade sacroiliac joint inflammation. Methods MR examinations of sacroiliac joint were prospectively performed in 35 AS patients (AS group) and 30 healthy controls (HC group). The grade of sacroiliac joint inflammation and SPARCC score in AS group were evaluated according to MRI findings, and the patients were then further divided into bone marrow oedema (BMO) subgroup (n=19) and non-BMO subgroup (n=16) according to whether BMO presented under articular surface or not, and ADC of sacroiliac joint (ADCsacroiliac) were measured. Receiver operating characteristic curve was drawn, the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to evaluate the efficacy of ADCsacroiliac for assessing AS sacroiliac joint inflammation grade. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to analyze the correlation between ADCsacroiliac and SPARCC score in AS patients with different grade sacroiliac joint inflammation. Results ADCsacroiliac in BMO subgroup and non-BMO subgroup was (4.85±1.44)×10－4 and (4.30±0.64)×10－4 mm2/s, respectively, being not significantly different (P＞0.05) but both higher than that in HC group (×10－4 mm2/s, both P＜0.05). The sensitivity of ADCsacroiliac for assessing grade of sacroiliac joint inflammation in AS patients was 49.44%, 51.94%, 73.06% and 60.50%, with specificity of 75.00%, 78.92%, 83.33% and 66.67%, respectively, and AUC of 0.613, 0.712, 0.837 and 0.645, respectively. ADCsacroiliac was moderately-highly positively correlated with SPARCC score of AS patients with Ⅱ and Ⅲ grade sacroiliac joint inflammation (r=0.580, 0.933, both P＜0.05), but no obvious correlation was detected between ADCsacroiliac and SPARCC score of AS patients with Ⅰ or Ⅳ grade sacroiliac joint inflammation (both P＞0.05). Conclusion ADCsacroiliac was positively correlated with SPARCC scores of AS patients with Ⅱ and Ⅲ grade sacroiliac joint inflammation, which could be regarded as a reliable quantitative parameter for monitoring sacroiliac joint BMO. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
