| 何萍,罗霞,杨鑫,唐小清,杨友,张菊英,甘媛琳,余进洪.超声造影定量评估微波消融兔肝后凝固坏死范围:与病理所见对照[J].中国医学影像技术,2024,40(10):1461~1465 |
| 超声造影定量评估微波消融兔肝后凝固坏死范围:与病理所见对照 |
| Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for evaluating area of coagulation necrosis after microwave ablation of rabbit liver: Comparison with pathological findings |
| 投稿时间：2024-03-16 修订日期：2024-05-15 |
| DOI：10.13929/j.issn.1003-3289.2024.10.002 |
| 中文关键词: 兔 肝 消融技术 超声检查 |
| 英文关键词:rabbits liver ablation techniques ultrasonography |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 434 |
| 全文下载次数: 149 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 与病理所见相对照,观察超声造影(CEUS)显示微波消融(MWA)兔肝后消融灶凝固坏死范围。方法 将25只健康雄性实验兔随机平均分为L0、M0、H0、M7及M14共5组,以不同功率、时间行MWA,之后通过CEUS及病理检查观察消融灶。L0组:20 W、1 min,M0组:30 W、1 min, H0组:30 W、3 min,于每只兔肝消融4个靶区,均于消融当日观察消融灶;M7组及M14组均为30 W、1 min,于每只兔肝消融2个靶区,分别于第7及第14日观察消融灶。比较各组CEUS及病理所见消融灶或消融灶+水肿带(IRB)范围,观察其测值差异及随时间延长的变化。结果 消融后第7日,CEUS显示M7组消融灶面积略高于病理所见(校正P=0.045),但2种方法所测消融灶长径及短径差异均无统计学意义(校正P均＞0.05);消融后第14日,2种方法所测M14组消融灶长径、短径及面积差异均无统计学意义(校正P均＞0.05)。CEUS或病理所见M0组消融灶长径、短径及面积均小于M7组及M14组(校正P均＜0.05),而M7组和M14组间差异均无统计学意义(校正P均＞0.05)。结论 以不同功率及时间消融兔肝当日,CEUS显示消融灶、消融灶+IRB范围及IRB面积均大于病理所见;消融后第7日CEUS与病理所见消融灶范围基本相符,提示于消融后第7日复查CEUS可准确判断消融灶实际凝固坏死范围。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To observe area of coagulation necrosis after microwave ablation (MWA) of rabbit liver showed on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in comparison with pathological findings. Methods Twenty-five healthy male experimental rabbits were equally randomly divided into L0, M0, H0, M7 and M14 groups. MWA was achieved with different power and time, and then CEUS and pathological examinations were performed, respectively. Four target areas of rabbit liver were ablated under 20 W for 1 min in L0 group,under 30 W for 1 min in M0 group and under 30 W for 3 min in H0 group, and the ablated areas were observed on the same day after MWA, while 2 target areas of rabbit liver were ablated under 30 W for 1 min in M7 and M14 groups, and the ablated areas were observed 7 days and 14 days after MWA, respectively. The ablated foci and ablated foci+edema band (inflammatory reaction band, IRB) showed on CEUS and pathology were compared, and their differences and changes with time going were analyzed. Results On the day of ablation, the extent of ablation foci, ablation foci+IRB as well as IRB in L0, M0 and H0 groups showed on CEUS were all larger than pathological findings under light microscopy (all P＜0.05), and the difference value of the length of the ablation foci between 2 methods increased sequentially among group L0, M0 and H0 (all adjusted P＜0.05). Seven days after ablation, the area of ablation foci measured with CEUS in M7 group was slightly larger than that measured with pathology (adjusted P=0.045), but no significant difference of the length nor the short diameter was found (both adjusted P＞0.05). Fourteen days after ablation, no significant difference of the length, the short diameter nor the area of ablation foci was detected between 2 methods in M14 group (all adjusted P＞0.05). The length, short diameter and area of ablation foci in M0 group measured with CEUS or pathology were all smaller than those in M7 and M14 groups (all adjusted P＜0.05), while no significant difference was found between the latter 2 groups (all adjusted P＞0.05). Conclusion On the day of MWA of rabbit liver with different power and time settings, the areas of ablation foci, ablation foci+IRB and IRB showed on CEUS were larger than pathological findings. The range of ablation foci showed on CEUS 7 days after ablation was basically in line with pathology, indicating that CUES should be reexamined 7 days after ablation to evaluate the actual extent of coagulation and necrosis of ablation foci. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
