Comparison of the Diagnostic Value between Intraluminal Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography and Conventional Transabdominal Ultrasonography for Colorectal Neoplasms_West China Medical Journal

Authors：

ZHUANG Hua ,  PENG Yulan , LUO Yan , ZHANG Qiong , LI Zhaoxia

Department of Ultrasound, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P.R. China;

Corresponding author：

PENG Yulan, Email: zhuanghua120@yahoo.cn

Keywords：

结直肠肿瘤; 超声造影; 肠充盈超声检查; 水灌肠超声检查

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

【摘要】　目的　比较肠充盈超声检查法与常规经腹超声检查法在结直肠肿瘤中的诊断价值。　方法　对2008年6月-2009年6月64例经临床病理确诊的结直肠肿瘤患者分别经腹常规超声及肠充盈超声检查。在肠充盈状态下观察病变的形态，对病变进行定位并观察结直肠肿瘤的彩色多普勒血流信号。比较肠充盈超声检查法及常规经腹超声检查法在结直肠肿瘤的检出、定位和显示血流的能力的差异。　结果　常规经腹部超声检查发现32例结直肠肿瘤（32/64），病灶敏感性为50%；肠充盈超声检查法发现病灶55例（55/64），病灶敏感性为85.9%。经腹常规超声检查的定位准确率为21.9%（7/32），肠充盈超声检查法对结直肠肿瘤的定位准确率为89.1%（49/55）。两种方法比较差异有统计学的意义（P lt;0.05）。　结论　肠充盈超声检查法在结直肠肿瘤的病变敏感性检出、定位准确性等方面优于经腹常规超声检查；而不同病理类型的结直肠肿瘤具有不同的超声声像图特征。
【Abstract】　Objective　 To compare the diagnostic value between intraluminal contrast-enhanced hydrocolon ultrasonography and conventional transabdominal ultrasonography for of colorectal neoplasms.　Methods　 The conventional transabdominal ultrasonography and hydrocolonic ultrasonography using an intraluminal contrast agent were performed on 62 patients from June 2008 to June 2009. The morphological features and location of the lesion were observed and the blood flow signals were observed. The different diagnostic value between conventional transabdominal ultrasonography and intraluminal contrast-enhanced hydrocolon ultrasonography was compared.　Results　 The sensitivity of the intraluminal contrast-enhanced hydrocolon ultrasonography in the depiction of the colorectal neoplasms (55/64, 85.9%) was higher than that of the conventional transabdominal ultrasonography (32/64, 50%, P lt;0.05). And the accuracy of the intraluminal contrast-enhanced hydrocolon ultrasonography in locating the colorectal neoplasms (48/55, 87.3%) was higher than that of the conventional transabdominal ultrasonography (7/32, 53.2%, P lt;0.05).　Conclusion　 Intraluminal contrast-enhanced hydrocolon ultrasonography is more valuable for colorectal neoplasms than conventional transabdominal ultrasonography in detecting and locating colorectal neoplasms. Colorectal neoplasms with different pathological types may have different ultrasonic features.

Citation： ZHUANG Hua,PENG Yulan,LUO Yan,ZHANG Qiong,LI Zhaoxia. Comparison of the Diagnostic Value between Intraluminal Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography and Conventional Transabdominal Ultrasonography for Colorectal Neoplasms. West China Medical Journal, 2010, 25(11): 1964-1968. doi: Copy

1.	Badea R, Ciobanu L, Gomotirceanu A, et al. Contrast ultrasonography of the digestive tract lumen. Review of the literature and personal experience[J]. Med Ultrason, 2010, 12(1): 52-61.
2.	Maconi G, Radice E, Bareggi E, et al. Hydrosonography of the gastrointestinal tract[J]. Am J Roentgenol, 2009, 193(3): 700-708.
3.	Lund PJ, Fritz TA, Unger EC, et al. Cellulose as gasa trointestinal US contrast agent[J]. Radiology, 1992, 185(3): 783-788.
4.	Pallotta N, Baccini F, Corazziari E. Small intestine contrast ultrasonography (SICUS) in the diagnosis of small intestine lesions[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2001, 27(3): 335-341.
5.	Parente F, Greco S, Molteni M, et al. Oral contrast enhanced bowel ultrasonography in the assessment of small intestine Crohn′s disease: a prospective comparison with conventional ultrasound, x-ray studies, and ileocolonoscopy[J]. Gut, 2004, 53(11): 1652-1657.
6.	Li SY, Huang PT, Wang ZM, et al. The relationship between enhanced intensity and microvessel density of gastric carcinoma using double contrast-enhanced ultrasonography[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2009, 35(7): 1086-1091.
7.	刘吉斌. 现代介入性超声诊断和治疗[M]. 北京: 科学技术文献出版社, 2004: 537-539.
8.	Adler DD, Carson PL, Rubin JM, et al. Doppler ultrasound color flow imaging in the study of breast cancer preliminary findings[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 1990, 16(6): 553-559.
9.	Leen E, Ceccotti P, Moug SJ, et al. Potential value of Contrast-enhanced intraoperative ultrasonography during partial hepatectomy for metastases an essential investigation before resection[J]. Ann Surg, 2006, 243(2): 236-240.
10.	Bluth E, Merritt CA, Sullivan MA. Ultrasound evaluation of the stomach, small bowel, and colon[J]. Radiology, 1979, 133: 677-680.
11.	Vstewart VR, Sidhu PS. New directions in ultrasound: microbubble contrast[J]. Br J Radiol, 2006, 79(939): 188-194.
12.	Derchi LE, Martinoli C, Pretolesi F, et al. Quantitative analysis of contrast enhancement[J]. Eur Radiol, 1999, 9(Suppl 3): 372-376.
13.	Blomley MJ, Cooke JC, Unger EC, et al. Microbubble contrast agents: a new era in ultrasound[J]. BMJ, 2001, 322: 1222-1225.
14.	Limberg B. Diagnosis and staging of colonic tumors by conventional abdominal sonography as compared with hydrocolonic sonography[J]. N Engl J Med, 1992, 327(2): 65-69.
15.	Chung HW, Chung JB, Park SW, et al. Comparison of hydrocolonic sonograpy accuracy in preoperative staging between colon and rectal cancer[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2004, 10(8): 1157-1161.

1. 　Badea R, Ciobanu L, Gomotirceanu A, et al. Contrast ultrasonography of the digestive tract lumen. Review of the literature and personal experience[J]. Med Ultrason, 2010, 12(1): 52-61.
2. 　Maconi G, Radice E, Bareggi E, et al. Hydrosonography of the gastrointestinal tract[J]. Am J Roentgenol, 2009, 193(3): 700-708.
3. 　Lund PJ, Fritz TA, Unger EC, et al. Cellulose as gasa trointestinal US contrast agent[J]. Radiology, 1992, 185(3): 783-788.
4. 　Pallotta N, Baccini F, Corazziari E. Small intestine contrast ultrasonography (SICUS) in the diagnosis of small intestine lesions[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2001, 27(3): 335-341.
5. 　Parente F, Greco S, Molteni M, et al. Oral contrast enhanced bowel ultrasonography in the assessment of small intestine Crohn′s disease: a prospective comparison with conventional ultrasound, x-ray studies, and ileocolonoscopy[J]. Gut, 2004, 53(11): 1652-1657.
6. 　Li SY, Huang PT, Wang ZM, et al. The relationship between enhanced intensity and microvessel density of gastric carcinoma using double contrast-enhanced ultrasonography[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2009, 35(7): 1086-1091.
7. 　刘吉斌. 现代介入性超声诊断和治疗[M]. 北京: 科学技术文献出版社, 2004: 537-539.
8. 　Adler DD, Carson PL, Rubin JM, et al. Doppler ultrasound color flow imaging in the study of breast cancer preliminary findings[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 1990, 16(6): 553-559.
9. 　Leen E, Ceccotti P, Moug SJ, et al. Potential value of Contrast-enhanced intraoperative ultrasonography during partial hepatectomy for metastases an essential investigation before resection[J]. Ann Surg, 2006, 243(2): 236-240.
10. 　Bluth E, Merritt CA, Sullivan MA. Ultrasound evaluation of the stomach, small bowel, and colon[J]. Radiology, 1979, 133: 677-680.
11. 　Vstewart VR, Sidhu PS. New directions in ultrasound: microbubble contrast[J]. Br J Radiol, 2006, 79(939): 188-194.
12. 　Derchi LE, Martinoli C, Pretolesi F, et al. Quantitative analysis of contrast enhancement[J]. Eur Radiol, 1999, 9(Suppl 3): 372-376.
13. 　Blomley MJ, Cooke JC, Unger EC, et al. Microbubble contrast agents: a new era in ultrasound[J]. BMJ, 2001, 322: 1222-1225.
14. 　Limberg B. Diagnosis and staging of colonic tumors by conventional abdominal sonography as compared with hydrocolonic sonography[J]. N Engl J Med, 1992, 327(2): 65-69.
15. 　Chung HW, Chung JB, Park SW, et al. Comparison of hydrocolonic sonograpy accuracy in preoperative staging between colon and rectal cancer[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2004, 10(8): 1157-1161.

West China Medical Journal

Comparison of the Diagnostic Value between Intraluminal Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography and Conventional Transabdominal Ultrasonography for Colorectal Neoplasms

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Format

Content