摘要
目的应用定量超声弹性成像技术评价压力范围和压放频率对鉴别仿体硬度准确性的影响。方法在线阵超声探头（以下简称普通探头）上加装压力传感器，使探头施加在组织上的压力范围及压放频率可视化，构成定量超声弹性成像探头（以下简称压力探头）。分别使用普通探头和压力探头测量硬度为8、14、45和80kPa，直径为10．4mm，深度为3cm的共4处圆柱形仿体的应变比值（SR），两种探头条件下每个仿体各测量45次，并将数据分为3组，分别计算并比较组I（80kPa对45、14、8kPa），组Ⅱ（80、45kPa对14、8kPa）和组HI（80、45、14kPa对8kPa）的普通探头组和压力探头组的ROC曲线下面积，以及两种探头测得4种硬度的SR值的差异。结果组I和组Ⅱ的普通探头组和压力探头组ROC曲线下面积之间差异无统计学意义（P=1．000），组Ⅲ的压力探头组的曲线下面积大于普通探头组（P=0．0379）；普通探头组中8kPa和14kPa的SR值之间差异无统计学意义（P=0．258），普通探头组中8、45和80kPa之间，14、45和80kPa之间以及压力探头组中4种硬度的SR值之间差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．001）。结论改良的定量超声弹性成像系统可以提高实时组织弹性成像鉴别仿体硬度的准确性。
Objective To evaluate the effects of the range and the frequency of the compression load on the accuracy for discerning target stiffness differences in ultrasound elastography. Methods Quantitative ultrasound elastography was achieved by integrating two compression force sensors, a laptop computer and a clinical ultrasound elastographie system. The force sensors and the ultrasound probe were assembled in a 3D printed mounting bracket for continuous monitoring of compression loads during ultrasound elastography. Both the force measurements and the elastographic maps were acquired and displayed on the laptop computer in real time. Four targets of the same diameter（10.4 mm）,the same depth （3 cm） and different stiffness levels （8, 14, 45 and 80 kPa） were examined by a HITACHI preirus, L74M linear-array transducer. Each target was evaluated 45 times with two different method （i. e., freehand elastography and quantitative elastography）, yielding 180 evaluations. The data were divided into the following three groups： group I （8o kPa vs 45,14 and 8 kPa）,group II （80,45kPa vs 14,8 kPa） and group Ⅲ （80,45 and 14 kPa vs 8 kPa）. Area under ROC curves（AUC） were calculated for different stiffness levels. Results In group Ⅲ, quantitative elastography yielded an greater AUC level than that of freehand elastography（ P = 0. 0379）. In group I and group Ⅱ , two methods yielded the similar AUC levels （ P = 1. 000）. However, quantitative elastography was able to discern 8 kPa and 14 kPa targets （ P 0. 001）, while freehand elastography was hard to differentiate them （P = 0. 258）. Conclusions In comparison with freehand elastography, quantitative ultrasound elastography is able to improve the accuracy for discerning different target stiffnesses.
出处
《中华超声影像学杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2016年第3期258-262,共5页
Chinese Journal of Ultrasonography
基金
基金项目：南京军区面上课题（MS046）
关键词
弹性成像技术
压力
仿体实验
诊断准确性
Elasticity imaging techniques
Pressure
Phantom study
Diagnostic accuracy
