期刊文献+

常规肝灌注法与JOG技术在肝脏MSCT灌注中的对比研究 被引量:4

Comparison study of the JOG technique and the conventional hepatic CT perfusion method
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的通过与常规灌注法相比较,评价JOG技术在肝脏MSCT灌注中的应用价值。方法收集临床拟排除肝脏隐匿性病变而行肝脏MSCT灌注扫描患者,共43例,所有患者最终随访证实肝功能正常,且未发现异常病变。43例患者根据灌注方法不同,随机分成A、B两组,A组22例,采用常规灌注方法,B组21例,采用JOG技术。两组患者的注射及扫描参数相同。扫描结束后,利用灌注软件测量肝门层面的肝脏灌注参数值,并利用非配对样本-t检验,统计两组各灌注参数值间差异无统计学意义,并统计两组患者的射线剂量。结果A、B两组患者的HAP、HPP、TLP、HPI分别为(13.06±5.86)mL/(min·mL)、(12.27±5.60)mL/(min·mL),(81.96±46.34)mL/(min·mL)、(68.65±37.12)mL/(min·mL),(95.09±48.28)mL/(min·mL)、(80.83±38.55)mL/(min·mL),16.14±8.76、17.46±8.98,经非配对样本t检验,两组间差异不具有统计学意义。有效剂量A组10.55-11.72 mSv,平均11.23 mSv;B组6.48~11.88 mSv,平均9.12 mSv,差异无统计学意义。结论 JOG技术同常规灌注方法相比,灌注值差异不具有统计学意义,可以用于全肝灌注以评价全肝或节段性肝脏功能储备,同时肝脏较大病灶(最大径〉5.0 cm)也可以选择性应用。 [Objective] To evaluate the application value of JOG technique in the hepatic MSCT perfusion by comparing with conventional MSCT perfusion method. [Methods] 43 patients suspected of latent hepatic disease underwent MSCT perfusion prospectively, and were proven with none hepatic disease. 43 patients were randomly assigned into A or B group according to the perfusion method selected. And, 22 patients were assigned into group A with the conventional perfusion method, and the other 21 patients were enrolled in group B with JOG technique. The injection and scan parameters were the same between the two groups. After the perfusion scan, the hepatic perfusion parameters and color maps were measured and produced with the function CT software, and the non-paired-t test were utilized to analyze the statistical difference of the perfusion parameters between this two groups. And the effective doses of group A and B were also counted. [Results] The HAP, HPP, TLP, HPI of group A and B were: 13.06± 5.86 mL·min·mL, 12.27 ± 5.60 mL·min· mL; 81.96 ± 46.34 mL·min·mL, 68.65 ± 37.12 mL·min·mL; 95.09 ± 48.28 mL·min·mL, 80.83 ± 38.55 mL·min· mL and 16.14 ± 8.76, 17.46 ± 8.98 respectively, and there was no statistical significance between groups. And the effective dose of group A ranged from 10.55 to 11.72 rosy, averaged 11.23 mSv, and that of group B ranged from 6.48 to 11.88 mSv, with an average of 9.12mSv. [Conclusion] The JOG technique, with no statistical significance of perfusion parameters with conventional CT perfusion method, could be utilized to evaluate the whole or partial hepatic functional reserve, and it could also be selected as the perfusion method of the mass with maximum diameter larger than 5 em.
出处 《中国现代医学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2014年第8期78-81,共4页 China Journal of Modern Medicine
基金 江苏省无锡市医院管理中心医学技术重大项目(No:YGZF1108)
关键词 肝脏 灌注 体层摄影术 螺旋计算机 hepatic perfusion tomography spiral computer
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献61

共引文献14

同被引文献47

  • 1管生,赵卫东,周康荣,彭伟军,毛健,唐峰,王勇,曹光,孙非.肝炎、肝纤维化和早期肝硬化阶段肝脏CT灌注实验动物的初步研究[J].中华放射学杂志,2005,39(8):877-881. 被引量:28
  • 2周作福,黄洪磊,徐彪,林碧金,刘振华,杨家友,邱友才.CT灌注扫描在肝肿瘤的临床应用[J].临床放射学杂志,2006,25(3):233-237. 被引量:46
  • 3Miles KA, FRCR MSc, Griffiths MR, et al. Perfusion CT: a worth- while enhancement? British J of Radio1,2003 ,76 :220.
  • 4Wang X, Xue HD, Jin ZY, et al. Quantitative hepatic CT perfusion measurement : Comparison of Couinaudg hepatic segments with dual- source 128-slice CT. Eur J Radiol, http://dx, doi. org/lO. 1016/j. ejrad. 2012,9 : 15.
  • 5Miles KA, Hayball MP, Dixon AK. Functional images of hepatic per- fusion obtained with dynamic CT. Radiology, 1993,188:405.
  • 6Blomley MJ, Coulden R, Dawson P, et al. Liver peffusion studied with uhrafast CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 1995,19:424.
  • 7Weidekamm C, Cejna M, Kramer L, et al. Effects of TIPS on liver perfusion measured by dynamic CT. AJR,2005 ,184 :505.
  • 8Ronot M, Lambert S, Daire JL, et al. Can we justify not doing liverperfusion imaging in 2013? [J]. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2013,94(12) :1323-1336.
  • 9赵虹,张翠运,王艳.多层螺旋CT对肝硬化中假肿瘤的诊断评价[J].中国医药,2008,3(11):678-679. 被引量:1
  • 10毛一雷,童俊翔.肝脏手术术前肝功能储备评估进展[J].中华临床医师杂志(电子版),2009,3(10):1-3. 被引量:13

引证文献4

二级引证文献56

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部