本文選題：磁共振 + 擴(kuò)散張量成像�。� 參考：《臨床放射學(xué)雜志》2017年06期

【摘要】：目的探討擴(kuò)散張量成像(DTI)技術(shù)聯(lián)合擴(kuò)散張量纖維示蹤(DTT)技術(shù)在外傷致脛神經(jīng)損傷中的價(jià)值。方法回顧性分析15例經(jīng)手術(shù)證實(shí)不同程度脛神經(jīng)損傷患者(損傷組)及15名健康志愿者(對(duì)照組)的膝關(guān)節(jié)DTI資料,定量分析兩組膝關(guān)節(jié)脛神經(jīng)各向異性(FA)值及表觀擴(kuò)散系數(shù)(ADC)值。采用獨(dú)立樣本t檢驗(yàn)分析兩組間FA值、ADC值差異;進(jìn)一步分析FA值及ADC值的受試者工作特征(ROC)曲線,評(píng)價(jià)其對(duì)脛神經(jīng)損傷診斷的準(zhǔn)確性,并采用DTT對(duì)脛神經(jīng)進(jìn)行纖維示蹤,評(píng)估神經(jīng)纖維走向、形態(tài)。結(jié)果損傷組FA值為0.51±0.05,對(duì)照組FA值為0.58±0.05,兩組差別具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(t=-4.509,P0.05);損傷組ADC值為(1.43±0.07)×10~(-3)mm~2/s,對(duì)照組ADC值為(1.35±0.10)×10~(-3)mm~2/s,兩組差別具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(t=2.725,P0.05);FA值的ROC曲線下面積(AUC)為0.884,ADC值的ROC曲線AUC為0.724。結(jié)論 DTI技術(shù)可以定量分析脛神經(jīng)損傷的損傷程度,并且在對(duì)中等以及重度神經(jīng)損傷的診斷上FA值較ADC值具有較高診斷效能,但其不能從形態(tài)學(xué)上對(duì)脛神經(jīng)予以顯示。DTT技術(shù)則可清晰顯示脛神經(jīng)損傷后不同損傷程度的神經(jīng)纖維形態(tài)變化。兩者聯(lián)合可大大提高對(duì)脛神經(jīng)損傷診斷的正確率,并且能夠?qū)γ勆窠?jīng)損傷后修復(fù)等進(jìn)行隨訪和評(píng)估。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate the value of diffusion Zhang Liang DTI technique combined with Zhang Liang fiber tracing technique in tibial nerve injury. Methods the DTI data of knee joint of 15 patients with different degree of tibial nerve injury (injury group) and 15 healthy volunteers (control group) were analyzed retrospectively. The values of anisotropy and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of tibial nerve in the two groups were quantitatively analyzed. The difference of FA value and ADC value between the two groups was analyzed by independent sample t-test, and the operating characteristics of FA value and ADC value were further analyzed to evaluate the accuracy of diagnosis of tibial nerve injury, and DTT was used to trace the tibial nerve. To evaluate the direction and shape of nerve fibers. Results the FA value of the injury group was 0.51 鹵0.05, and that of the control group was 0.58 鹵0.05. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant, the ADC value of the injury group was 1.43 鹵0.07 脳 10 ~ (-3) mm ~ (-2) / s, and the ADC value of the control group was 1.35 鹵0.10 脳 10 ~ (-3) mm ~ (-2) / s. The area of ROC curve with significant difference between the two groups was 0.884ADCs (ROC / AUC = 0.72443). Conclusion DTI technique can quantitatively analyze the degree of tibial nerve injury, and FA value is more effective than ADC value in the diagnosis of moderate and severe nerve injury. But it can not display the tibial nerve morphologically. DTT can clearly show the changes of the nerve fibers in different degree after the tibial nerve injury. The combination of the two can greatly improve the diagnostic accuracy of tibial nerve injury, and can be followed up and evaluated after tibial nerve injury.
【作者單位】： 河北北方學(xué)院研究生部;中國(guó)人民解放軍第251醫(yī)院影像科;
【分類號(hào)】：R445.2;R688

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 李娟利;伍艷群;王筍娟;方雁君;;選擇性脛神經(jīng)腓腸肌肌支切斷小腿塑形術(shù)護(hù)理體會(huì)[J];中國(guó)美容醫(yī)學(xué);2010年08期

2 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 賀秀彬;;脛神經(jīng)縮小手術(shù)3例的圍手術(shù)期護(hù)理[A];第二十二屆航天醫(yī)學(xué)年會(huì)暨第五屆航天護(hù)理年會(huì)論文匯編（下冊(cè)）[C];2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1842875