...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology >Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared with Rectal Endoscopic Sonography for the Prediction of Infiltration Depth in Colorectal Endometriosis
【24h】

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared with Rectal Endoscopic Sonography for the Prediction of Infiltration Depth in Colorectal Endometriosis

机译:磁共振成像与直肠内窥镜超声检查相比,用于预测结直肠内膜异位症的浸润深度

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Study Objective To compare the accuracies of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and rectal endoscopic sonography (RES) in the prediction of the infiltration depth of colorectal endometriosis. Design A retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting A university teaching hospital. Patients Forty patients with symptomatic deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) of the rectum who underwent colorectal resection were included. Interventions All patients underwent abdominopelvic MRI and RES preoperatively to assess the infiltration depth of colorectal endometriosis, and segmental resection of the rectosigmoid by laparoscopy was performed if RES showed bowel invasion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), and intermethod agreement were calculated for DIE muscularis and submucosal/mucosal infiltration confirmed by histopathological analysis. Measurements and Main Results For MRI detection of DIE muscularis infiltration, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and negative LR were 68%, 100%, 100%, 20%, and 0.32, respectively. For the MRI detection of DIE submucosal/mucosal involvement, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and positive and negative LRs were 47%, 81%, 69%, 63%, 2.49, and 0.65, respectively. The PPV of RES detection of DIE muscularis infiltration was 93%. For the RES detection of DIE submucosal/mucosal layers, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and positive and negative LRs were 79%, 48%, 58%, 71%, 1.51, and 0.44, respectively. Conclusion In the current study, MRI is valuable for detecting endometriosis of the rectum but is less accurate in detecting submucosal/mucosal involvement than RES. Magnetic resonance imaging was not successful for preoperative determination of segmental resection versus a more conservative approach. When bowel involvement is detected by MRI, RES is not essential. When symptoms suggest DIE in patients without intestinal lesions detected by MRI, RES is necessary to exclude bowel invasion. ]]>
机译:摘要研究目的比较磁共振成像(MRI)和直肠内镜超声(RES)在预测结直肠子宫内膜异位症的预测中的精度。设计回顾性队列研究(加拿大工作组分类II-2)。设立大学教学医院。包括患有结直肠切除的直肠症状深度浸润子宫内膜异位症(DIE)的患者。干预术后术后患有腹腔镜MRI和Res的患者进行评估结直肠癌患者的浸润深度,并且如果RES显示肠镜检查肠道镜,则进行腹腔镜的节段切除术。敏感性,特异性,阳性预测值(PPV),负预测值(NPV),阳性和负似然比(LRS),以及通过组织病理学分析证实的模肌和粘膜/粘膜浸润。 MRI检测DIE肌肉浸润的测量和主要结果,灵敏度,特异性,PPV,NPV和阴性LR分别为68%,100%,100%,20%和0.32。对于MRI检测模头粘膜/粘膜缺陷,敏感性,特异性,PPV,NPV和阳性和阴性LR分别为47%,81%,69%,63%,2.49和0.65。 DIA肌肉浸润的res检测的PPV为93%。对于耐粘膜层/粘膜层的检测,敏感性,特异性,PPV,NPV和阳性和阴性LR分别为79%,48%,58%,71%,1.51和0.44。结论在目前的研究中,MRI对检测直肠的子宫内膜异位症有价值,但在检测比RES的粘膜下/粘膜粘膜中的准确性较低。磁共振成像不成功,用于术前测定节段性切除与更保守的方法。当MRI检测到肠道受累时,RES不是必不可少的。当症状表明在没有MRI检测到的没有肠道病变的患者中死亡时,RER是必要的,以排除肠侵袭。 ]]>

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号