The PI in CEUS could reflect the MVD in HCC. Therefore, quantification of CEUS seems to be helpful for assessment of tumor vascularity in HCC.
Breast reconstruction after traditional radical mastectomy is particularly challenging for the plastic surgeon. Not only the breast, but subclavian and anterior axillary-fold deformities need to be corrected. An entire TRAM flap (including zone IV) is required, and bipedicled deep inferior epigastric vessels are needed to insure that the entire flap will survive completely. However, on the chest, it is difficult to locate the two suitable sets of recipient vessels for the two pedicles. The thoracodorsal vessels have usually been damaged during axillary dissection or radiation therapy. In the past, the proximal ends of the internal mammary artery and vein (IMA, IMV) have been used as recipient vessels with free flaps, with ligation of the distal ends. These authors have used both the proximal and distal ends of the IMA and IMV as recipient vessels for end-to-end anastomoses to the bipedicled deep inferior epigastric vessels (DIEA, DIEV) in seven clinical cases, with very satisfactory results obtained. Anatomic studies of the IMA and IMV were done in 10 dogs and two active patients, including studying hemodynamic changes at the proximal and distal ends of the IMA, and evaluation of perfusion units in the free bilateral TRAM flap. In the animal experiments, the mean pressure at the distal ends was 86/77 mmHg (left sides) and 87/78 mmHg (right sides); pressure was 63 to 71 percent of the proximal ends (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the pressures on the left and right sides. In the two patients, and in 5 others, the pressure at the distal ends was 66 and 58 mmHg, which was 75 to 77% of the pressure at the proximal ends. The blood flow at the two anastomotic stomas was similar in a 5-year follow-up. The clinical and experimental studies showed that the distal IMA has reduced perfusion pressure, but that it provides excellent flow and flap perfusion, allowing reliable use of two pedicles for survival of the entire flap.
BackgroundThe present meta-analysis, based on previous studies, was aimed to evaluate the test accuracy of real-time shear wave elastography (SWE) for the staging of liver fibrosis.Material/MethodsA systematic search on MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases was conducted, and data on SWE tests and liver fibrosis staging were collected. For each cut-off stage of fibrosis (F≥2, F≥3, and F≥4), pooled results of sensitivity, specificity, and area under summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were analyzed. The study heterogeneity was evaluated by χ2 and I2 tests. I2>50% or P≤0.05 indicates there was heterogeneity, and then a random-effects model was applied. Otherwise, the fixed-effects model was used. The publication bias was evaluated using Deeks funnel plots asymmetry test and Fagan plot analysis was performed.ResultsFinally, 934 patients from 8 published studies were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of SWE for F≥2 were 85.0% (95% CI, 82–88%) and 81% (95% CI, 71–88%), respectively. The area under the SROC curve with 95% CI was presented as 0.88 (95% CI, 85–91%). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of SWE for F≥3 were 90.0% (95% CI, 83.0–95.0%) and 81.0% (95% CI, 75.0–86.0%), respectively, corresponding to an area of SROC of 0.94 (95% CI, 92–96%). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of SWE for F≥4 were 87.0% (95% CI, 80.0–92.0%) and 88.0% (95% CI, 80.0–93.0%), respectively, corresponding to an area of SROC of 0.92 (95% CI, 89–94%).ConclusionsThe overall accuracy of SWE is high and clinically useful for the staging of liver fibrosis. Compared to the results of meta-analyses on other tests, such as RTE, TE, and ARFI, the performance of SWE is nearly identical in accuracy for the evaluation of cirrhosis. For the evaluation of significant liver fibrosis (F≥2), the overall accuracy of SWE seems to be similar to ARFI, but more accurate than RTE and TE.
BackgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) enhancement patterns in the assessment of thyroid nodules.Material/MethodsA total of 158 patients with suspected thyroid cancer underwent conventional ultrasound (US) and CEUS examinations. The contrast enhancement patterns of the lesions, including the peripheries of the lesions, were assessed by CEUS scans. The relationship between the size of the lesions and the degree of enhancement was also studied. US- and/or CEUS-guided biopsy was used to obtain specimens for histopathological diagnosis.ResultsThe final data included 148 patients with 157 lesions. Seventy-five patients had 82 malignant lesions and 73 patients had 75 benign lesions. Peripheral ring enhancement was seen in 40 lesions. The differences of enhancement patterns and peripheral rings between benign and malignant nodules were significant (p=0.000, 0.000). The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for malignant were 88%, 65.33%, and 88.32%, respectively, for CEUS, whereas they were 98.33%, 42.67%, and 71.97%, respectively, for TC by conventional US. The misdiagnosis rate by conventional US was 57.33% and 34.67% by CEUS (p=0.005). With regard to the size of lesions, a significant difference was found between low-enhancement, iso-enhancement, high-enhancement, iso-enhancement with no-enhancement area and no-enhancement (p=0.000).ConclusionsIn patients with suspicious US characteristics, CEUS had high specificity and contributed to establishing the diagnosis. Therefore, CEUS could avoid unnecessary biopsy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.