论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较超声造影诊断宫腔息肉的可靠性研究。方法:通过文献分析法和回顾统计分析法,文献分析法通过对比超声造影与常规超声技术的正确率,回顾统计分析,通过对院内2015年-2016年间38位患者进行回顾分析,对比常规超声、超声造影和宫腔镜检测3种方法,得出其诊断的准确率。结果:文献分析法中超声造影的准确率高于常规超声的准确率;回顾统计分析中,发现38例宫腔内膜息肉患者,常规超声检查诊断为宫腔内膜息肉,诊断出27例,准确率为71.05%;超声造影诊断出宫腔息肉,检查出36例,准确率为94.74%;宫腔镜检查,诊断出宫腔息肉为37例,准确率为97.36%。结论:超声造影和宫腔镜检查诊断正确率无明显差异,但均比常规超声检查得正确率高,超声造影是诊断宫腔息肉的无创、安全、准确的检查方法,具有很高的诊断价值。
Objective: To compare the reliability of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine polyps. Methods: By literature analysis and retrospective statistical analysis, literature analysis method by contrasting the accuracy of ultrasound contrast and conventional ultrasound techniques, retrospectively statistical analysis, retrospective analysis of 38 patients from 2015 to 2016 in the hospital, compared with conventional ultrasound, Ultrasound contrast and hysteroscopy three methods, the accuracy of its diagnosis. Results: The accuracy of CEUS in literature analysis was higher than that of conventional ultrasound. In the retrospective statistical analysis, 38 cases of endometrial polyps were found, routine diagnosis of uterine polyps by ultrasonography, diagnosis of 27 cases, The accuracy rate was 71.05%. Ultrasonography was used to diagnose uterine polyps, 36 cases were detected with an accuracy rate of 94.74%. Hysteroscopy showed that uterine polyps were diagnosed in 37 cases with an accuracy rate of 97.36%. Conclusions: There is no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between CEUS and hysteroscopy, but both of them are more accurate than conventional ultrasonography. CEUS is a noninvasive, safe and accurate method to diagnose uterine polyps, which is of high diagnostic value .