本文關(guān)鍵詞： 坐骨 股骨 撞擊綜合征 髖關(guān)節(jié) 磁共振成像　出處：《臨床放射學(xué)雜志》2017年07期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：目的觀察坐骨股骨撞擊綜合征(IFI)患者M(jìn)RI影像學(xué)征象,探討磁共振橫斷面不同測(cè)量指標(biāo)對(duì)IFI的診斷價(jià)值。方法回顧性分析行髖關(guān)節(jié)MRI檢查,確診為IFI的32例患者(共62個(gè)髖關(guān)節(jié))資料,作為病例組;另搜集29例排除IFI的患者共58個(gè)髖關(guān)節(jié)資料,作為對(duì)照組;在橫斷面T_1WI TSE序列像上測(cè)量坐骨股骨間隙(IFS)、股方肌間隙(QFS)、股方肌總體積(TQFMV)及乆繩肌腱面積(HTA)。結(jié)果病例組患者的IFS、QFS、TQFMV分別為(11.5±3.3)mm、(6.6±2.2)mm、(17.2±6.3)cm~3;對(duì)照組上述指標(biāo)分別為(22.5±3.8)mm、(14.6±3.3)mm、(25.1±5.6)cm~3。上述各組數(shù)據(jù)病例組均小于對(duì)照組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(t值分別為-17.0,-16.53,-6.9;P值均0.05)。病例組HTA值為(2.9±0.5)cm~2,對(duì)照組HTA值為(2.0±0.4)cm~2,病例組HTA大于對(duì)照組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(t值為9.8,P0.05);病例組IFS與QFS、TQFMV間存在正相關(guān)關(guān)系(r值分別為0.833、0.687;P值均0.05);HTA與QFS、TQFMV之間存在負(fù)相關(guān)關(guān)系(r值分別為-0.634、-0.815;P值均0.05);IFS、QFS、TQFMV及HTA診斷界值分別為≤15.4、≤7.1、≤17.86、≥2.56;病例組患者水腫及脂肪浸潤(rùn)不同等級(jí)相應(yīng)IFS之間差異不具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。結(jié)論 MRI檢查發(fā)現(xiàn)IFS、QFS狹窄及股方肌水腫或脂肪浸潤(rùn)對(duì)診斷IFI有極其重要的診斷價(jià)值,可為臨床診斷IFI、制定治療方案及選擇手術(shù)方式提供有力憑證。
[Abstract]:Objective to observe the imaging features of MRI in patients with sciatic femur impingement syndrome (IFI), and to evaluate the diagnostic value of different MRI cross-sectional measurements in IFI. Methods the hip joint MRI was retrospectively analyzed. Thirty-two patients (62 hips) diagnosed as IFI were selected as case group, and 58 hip joint data were collected from 29 patients who excluded IFI as control group. On the T 1WI TSE images of the patients, we measured the IfSV, the total volume of the quadratus femoris, the total volume of the quadratus femoris and the area of the tendons. Results the TQFMV of the patients in the case group were 11.5 鹵3.3mm, 6.6 鹵2.2mm and 17.2 鹵6.3mm / cm ~ (-1) respectively, and the above indexes in the control group were 22.5 鹵3.8mm ~ (14.6 鹵3.3mm) ~ 14.6 鹵3.3mm ~ (-1) 鹵5.6mm ~ (-1) 路cm ~ (-1), respectively. The data of the patients in the control group were as follows: 22.5 鹵3.8mm ~ 14.6 鹵3.3mm ~ (-1) 鹵5.6mm ~ (-1) 路cm ~ (-1). The case group was smaller than the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0. 05). The HTA value in the case group was 2. 9 鹵0. 5 cm ~ (-2), and the HTA value in the control group was 2. 0 鹵0. 4 cm ~ (-2). The HTA in the case group was higher than that in the control group. The positive correlation between IFS and TQFMV was 0.833, 0.687P and 0.05P, respectively. The negative correlation between IFS and TQFMV was -0.634- 0.815P, and the diagnostic limit of HTA was 鈮，

本文編號(hào)：1519828