超声造影参数成像在肝脏局灶性病变诊断中的应用研究

发布时间：2018-03-20 23:01

本文选题：超声造影　切入点：肝脏局灶性病变　出处：《广西医科大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：目的：探讨超声造影参数成像在肝脏局灶性病变诊断中的应用研究。方法：运用SonoLiverCAP软件对88例接受超声造影检查的肝脏局灶性病变患者病灶进行定量分析,并以病灶与周围肝实质的增强水平差值为参数进行动态血管模型(dynamicvascularpatterns,DVP)参数成像,比较良、恶性组间及其与周围肝实质定量参数及DVP有无差异。结果：定量参数包括:峰值强度、上升时间、达峰时间、平均渡越时间、灌注指数、上升斜率、下降斜率、峰值强度完全下降时间。我们把上升时间、达峰时间、灌注指数、上升斜率定义为灌注参数;平均渡越时间、下降斜率、峰值强度完全下降时间定义为消退参数。良、恶性组间峰值强度比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.121);良、恶性组间灌注参数及消退参数比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。在良性组中,峰值强度及灌注参数(除上升时间)与周围肝实质比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而上升时间及消退参数与周围肝实质比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。在恶性组中,灌注参数及消退参数与周围肝实质比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。在DVP曲线图中,良、恶性组消退型、未消退型及负向型分别占10%(4/40)、72.5%(29/40)、17.5%(7/40)和87.5%(42/48)、10.4%(5/48)、2.1%(1/48),两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.01);在DVP分布图中,良、恶性组消退型、未消退型及负向型分别占10%(4/40)、72.5%(29/40)、17.5%(7/40)和89.6%(43/48)、8.3%(4/48)、2.1%(1/48),两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。结论：超声造影参数成像可以更直观清晰地反映肝脏良恶性病灶与周围肝实质增强及消退水平的动态变化。
[Abstract]:Objective: to investigate the application of contrast-enhanced parametric imaging in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions. Methods: SonoLiverCAP software was used to quantitatively analyze the lesions of 88 patients with focal hepatic lesions undergoing contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. The dynamic vascular model of dynamic vasculature pattern patterns (DVPs) was performed by using the enhancement level difference between the lesions and the surrounding hepatic parenchyma as parameters. The quantitative parameters of liver parenchyma and DVP were different between malignant groups and peripheral liver parenchyma. Results: quantitative parameters include: peak intensity, rise time, peak time, average transit time, perfusion index, rise slope, descent slope, peak intensity complete decline time. The ascending slope is defined as the perfusion parameter, the mean transit time, the descent slope and the peak intensity fall time are defined as the regression parameters. There is no significant difference in peak intensity between benign and malignant groups (P < 0. 121). There were significant differences in perfusion parameters and regression parameters among malignant groups (P 0.05). The peak intensity and perfusion parameters (except rising time) were significantly different from those of peripheral hepatic parenchyma (P 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the rising time and regression parameters compared with that of peripheral liver parenchyma (P 0.05). There were significant differences in perfusion parameters and regression parameters between the surrounding liver parenchyma and the surrounding liver parenchyma (P 0.05). In the DVP curve, the regression, non-regression and negative types of benign and malignant groups accounted for 10.4 / 40 / 72.529 / 72.5 / 740 / 740 / 740 and 87.55 / 448 / 10.4 / 548 / 1 / 1 / 48, respectively. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P10.010); in the distribution of DVP, there was a significant difference between the two groups. In benign and malignant groups, regression type, unabated type and negative type accounted for 10 / 4 / 40 / 72.5 / 29 / 40 / 75 / 740) and 89.6 / 43 / 48 / 8 / 8 / 2. 1 / 1 / 48, respectively. There was a significant difference between the two groups (P0.01 / 0. 01, P < 0. 01, P 0. 01, P 0. 01, P 0. 01, P 0. 01, P 0. 01, P 0. 01, P 0. 01, P 0. 01, P 0. 01). Conclusion: the dynamic changes of enhancement and regression of benign and malignant liver lesions and surrounding hepatic parenchyma can be more clearly reflected by contrast-enhanced parameter imaging.
【学位授予单位】：广西医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：R445.1;R735.7

【参考文献】