|
|
|
| The diagnostic value of mri and ultrasonography in adherent placenta |
| CHEN Fang1, YU Jie1, CHEN Yaomeng1, CHI Xinle1, LIU Jinjin2, CHEN Weijian2 |
| 1.Department of Radiology, Wenzhou People’s Hospital, the Third Clinical Institute Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325000; 2.Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325015 |
|
| Cite this article: |
|
CHEN Fang,YU Jie,CHEN Yaomeng, et al. The diagnostic value of mri and ultrasonography in adherent placenta[J]. JOURNAL OF WEZHOU MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, 2017, 47(7): 500-503.
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To analyze the diagnostic value of MRI and ultrasonography in adherent placenta, and to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of two kinds of examination methods for this disease. Methods: A total of 134 patients suspected as placenta implantation abnormality underwent MRI and ultrasonography. The diagnostic value of MRI and ultrasonography in adherent placenta were evaluated and compared with intraoperative and postoperative pathology as the diagnostic criteria. Results: In 134 cases who were all undergoing caesarean section, 43 cases were confirmed to be placenta implantation by the intraoperative and postoperative pathology diagnosis. Among them, 24 patients were as adhesion, 17 patients were as implanted and 2 patients were as penetrating. The sensitivity, specificity, correct index, misdiagnosis rate and missed diagnosis rate of adherent placenta diagnosis by MRI were 62.50%, 87.27%, 49.77%, 12.73% and 37.50%, respectively. The indexes above of diagnosis by ultrasound were 25.00%, 89.09%, 14.09%, 10.91% and 75.00%, respectively. There were significant differences between the sensitivity of MRI and ultrasonography (χ2=6.875, P=0.009). Conclusion: Ultrasonography is of high specificity. Its position as the convenient and cheap screening test is irreplaceable. The sensitivity of MRI is higher than that of ultrasonography. And MRI should be regarded as a routine examination of suspected cases.
|
|
Received: 17 October 2016
|
| |
|
|
|
[1] 黄艳仪, 王析峰, 黄东健. 妇产科危急重症救治[M]. 北京:人民卫生出版社, 2011: 202-206.
[2] 曹泽毅. 中华妇产科学[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 1999: 425-427.
[3] MALDJIAN C, ADAM R, PELOSI M, et al. MRI appearance of placenta percreta and placenta accrete[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 1999, 17(7): 965-971.
[4] 曹满瑞, 杜牧, 黄怡, 等. 胎盘植入的MRI征象[J]. 中华放射学杂志, 2012, 46(7): 629-632.
[5] 杨燕, 牛兆仪, 丁云川, 等. 妊娠晚期剖宫产瘢痕部位胎盘植入超声表现[J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2015, 31(12): 1111-1113.
[6] ALAMO L, ANAYE A, REY J, et al. Detection of suspected placental invasion by MRI: do the results depend on observer experience?[J]. European J Radiol, 2013, 82(2): 51-53.
[7] TEO T H, LAW Y M, TAY K H, et al. Use of magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of placental invasion[J]. Clin Radiol, 2009, 64(5): 511-516.
[8] 林育娇, 刘正平, 艾文, 等. 植入型凶险型前置胎盘子宫切除14例临床分析[J]. 齐齐哈尔医学院学报, 2015, 36(28): 4284-4285.
[9] JIANG K M, LI S T, ZHONG X, et al. Prenatal MRI and pathological features of placental invasion[J]. Chin J Med Imaging Technol, 2013, 29(6): 1002-1005.
[10] 陈敦金. 胎盘植入[M]. 长沙: 湖南科学技术出版社, 2013: 1-2.
[11] 张方璟, 曹满瑞, 刘柄光, 等. 磁共振对植入型凶险性前置胎盘的诊断价值[J]. 实用放射学杂志, 2015, 31(5): 797-801.
[12] LEVINE D. Obstetric MRI[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2006, 24(1): 1-15. |
| [1] |
. [J]. JOURNAL OF WEZHOU MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(8): 0-. |
|
|
|
|
