期刊文献+

经直肠超声在肛瘘定位中的临床应用 被引量:5

Clinical Application Value of Transrectal Ultrasonography in Diagnosing Fistula in Anus
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的 探讨经直肠超声(TRUS)在肛瘘定位诊断中的价值.方法 选取笔者医院2010年11月~2013年10月经手术证实肛瘘患者50例,对比分析运用TRUS法和常规法对肛瘘瘘管定位的临床应用价值.结果 经直肠超声法和常规法对肛瘘定位诊断的符合率分别为92%、66%,两者间的差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);两种定位方法的准确性、敏感度及特异性比较均无统计学差异(P>0.05);对各类型肛瘘的定位诊断以及对肛瘘内口、主管和分支管的定位诊断,经直肠超声法明显优于常规法,两者间比较有统计学差异(P<0.05).结论 经直肠超声法对肛门内外括约肌显示较为清晰,能为肛瘘瘘管的诊断提供可靠依据为术前瘘管内口、主管及分支管的准确定位提供重要参考依据,具有一定的临床应用价值. Objective To assess the clinical value of transrectal ultrasonography(TRUS) in diagnosing fistula in anus.Methods A comparative study of TRUS and conventional method were performed on 50 cases of fistula in anus confirmed by operation.Retrospective analysis was undertaken to compare diagnostic accuracy of two methods.Results Forty six (92%) cases were correctly diagnosed by TRUS,while 33 (66%) were defined by conventional method (P < 0.05).The positioning accuracy of two methods,sensitivity and speciality had no significant difference (P > 0.05).Localization diagnosis of each type of anal fistula and mouth head inside the anal fistula and branch pipe of localization diagnosis,by TRUS was superior to conventional method.There was superior to the conventional method with TRUS in diagnosing fistula in anus,and diagnosing internal opening,main duct and branch duct of fistula in anus(P <0.05).Conclusion TRUS was more accurate than conventional method in detailed scanning fistula in anus,therefore can accurately identify the internal and external sphincter internal opening,main duct and branch duct of fistula in anus.
出处 《医学研究杂志》 2014年第4期154-157,共4页 Journal of Medical Research
关键词 经直肠超声 肛瘘 定位 Transrectal ultrasonography Fistula in anus Positioning
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献46

  • 1粟晖,张家庭,田平,李泉水.肛周感染性疾病的超声分型和声像图特征[J].中国超声医学杂志,2004,20(8):609-611. 被引量:13
  • 2王嵩,马海峰,王夕富,徐冰.浆细胞性乳腺炎的多层螺旋CT诊断[J].中西医结合学报,2005,3(3):199-202. 被引量:27
  • 3Lunniss PJ, Barker PG, Sultan AH, Armstrong P, Reznek RH, Bartram CI, Cottam KS, Phillips RK. Magnetic resonance imaging of fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum 1994; 37:708-718. 被引量:1
  • 4MaierAG, Funovics MA, Kreuzer SH, Herbst F, Wunderlich M, Teleky BK, Mittlbock M, Schima W, Lechner GL. Evaluation of perianal sepsis: comparison of anal endosonography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 14:254-260. 被引量:1
  • 5Gustafsson-UM, Kahvecioglu B, Astrom G, Ahlstrom H, Graf W. Endoanal ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative assessment of anal fistula: a comparative study. Colorectal Dis 2001; 3:189-197. 被引量:1
  • 6Schwartz DA, Wiersema MJ, Dudiak KM, Fletcher JG, Clain JE, Tremaine WJ, Zinsmeister AR, Norton ID, Boardman LA, Devine RM, Wolff BG, Young-Fadok TM, Diehl NN, Pemberton JH, Sandborn WJ. A comparison of endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and exam under anesthesia for evaluation of Crohn's perianal fistulas. Gastroenterology 2001; 121:1064-1072. 被引量:1
  • 7Yee LF, Bimbaum EH, Read TE, Kodner IJ, Fleshman JW. Use of endoanal ultrasound in patients with rectovaginal fistulas. Dis Colon Rectum 1999; 42:1057-1064. 被引量:1
  • 8Lindsey I, Humphreys MM, George BD, Mortensen NJ. The role of anal ultrasound in the management of anal fistulas. Colorectal Dis 2002; 4:118-122. 被引量:1
  • 9Buchanan GN, Halligan S, Bartram CI, Williams AB, Tarroni D, Cohen CR. Clinical examination, endosonography, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of fistula in ano: comparison with outcome-based reference standard. Radiology 2004; 233:674-681. 被引量:1
  • 10Choen S, Burnett S, Bartram CI, Nicholls RJ. Comparison between anal endosonography and digital examination in the evaluation of anal fistulae. Br J Surg 1991; 78:445-447. 被引量:1

共引文献102

同被引文献34

引证文献5

二级引证文献19

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