Incidence and Diagnostic Performance of Postnatal Ultrasound for Presacral Masses in Pediatric Patients with Anorectal Malformation.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 ACOUSTICS
Takahiro Hosokawa, Yumiko Sato, Yutaka Tanami, Kyoichi Deie, Hiroshi Kawashima, Eiji Oguma
{"title":"Incidence and Diagnostic Performance of Postnatal Ultrasound for Presacral Masses in Pediatric Patients with Anorectal Malformation.","authors":"Takahiro Hosokawa, Yumiko Sato, Yutaka Tanami, Kyoichi Deie, Hiroshi Kawashima, Eiji Oguma","doi":"10.1002/jum.16724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the incidence of presacral masses in patients with anorectal malformations (ARMs) and evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasound to detect presacral masses during the neonatal period.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pediatric patients with ARM underwent ultrasonography during the neonatal period, and their magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results were reviewed. The presence or absence of a presacral mass was assessed employing ultrasonography and compared with MRI results using the Clopper-Pearson method. The type of ARM (low/not-low) and the presence or absence of sacral anomalies were compared between patients with and without a presacral mass using Fisher's exact test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of presacral masses in our study cohort was 4.6% (5/109). Ultrasound diagnostic performance for detecting presacral masses had an accuracy of 98.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 93.5-99.8), sensitivity of 60% (95% CI: 14.7-94.7), specificity of 100% (95% CI: 96.5-100), positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI: 29.3-100), and negative predictive value of 98.1% (95% CI: 93.4-99.8). ARM type and presence or absence of sacral anomalies were significantly different between the presacral mass and without presacral mass groups (low/not-low = 5/0 vs 47/57, P = .022; and presence/absence of sacral anomalies = 3/2 vs 18/86, respectively, P = .048).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The incidence of presacral masses in pediatric patients with ARM was low (5%). Although the positive predictive value was reliable, ultrasonography performed during the neonatal period was not sensitive. Therefore, sonographers should pay attention when evaluating patients with low-type ARMs accompanying sacral anomalies to avoid overlooking them.</p>","PeriodicalId":17563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16724","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the incidence of presacral masses in patients with anorectal malformations (ARMs) and evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasound to detect presacral masses during the neonatal period.

Methods: Pediatric patients with ARM underwent ultrasonography during the neonatal period, and their magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results were reviewed. The presence or absence of a presacral mass was assessed employing ultrasonography and compared with MRI results using the Clopper-Pearson method. The type of ARM (low/not-low) and the presence or absence of sacral anomalies were compared between patients with and without a presacral mass using Fisher's exact test.

Results: The incidence of presacral masses in our study cohort was 4.6% (5/109). Ultrasound diagnostic performance for detecting presacral masses had an accuracy of 98.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 93.5-99.8), sensitivity of 60% (95% CI: 14.7-94.7), specificity of 100% (95% CI: 96.5-100), positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI: 29.3-100), and negative predictive value of 98.1% (95% CI: 93.4-99.8). ARM type and presence or absence of sacral anomalies were significantly different between the presacral mass and without presacral mass groups (low/not-low = 5/0 vs 47/57, P = .022; and presence/absence of sacral anomalies = 3/2 vs 18/86, respectively, P = .048).

Conclusions: The incidence of presacral masses in pediatric patients with ARM was low (5%). Although the positive predictive value was reliable, ultrasonography performed during the neonatal period was not sensitive. Therefore, sonographers should pay attention when evaluating patients with low-type ARMs accompanying sacral anomalies to avoid overlooking them.

产后超声对小儿肛肠畸形骶前肿块的发生率及诊断价值。
目的:探讨肛肠畸形(ARMs)患者骶前肿物的发生率,评价超声对新生儿期骶前肿物的诊断价值。方法:回顾性分析新生儿期小儿ARM患者的超声检查结果及MRI检查结果。骶前肿块的存在与否采用超声检查评估,并与使用Clopper-Pearson方法的MRI结果进行比较。使用Fisher精确检验比较有和没有骶前肿块的患者的ARM类型(低/不低)和有无骶骨异常。结果:我们的研究队列中骶前肿块的发生率为4.6%(5/109)。超声诊断骶前肿块的准确率为98.2%(95%置信区间(CI): 93.5 ~ 99.8),灵敏度为60% (95% CI: 14.7 ~ 94.7),特异性为100% (95% CI: 96.5 ~ 100),阳性预测值为100% (95% CI: 29.3 ~ 100),阴性预测值为98.1% (95% CI: 93.4 ~ 99.8)。骶前肿块组和无骶前肿块组的ARM类型和有无骶骨异常有显著差异(低/不低= 5/0 vs 47/57, P = 0.022;骶骨异常存在/不存在= 3/2 vs 18/86, P = 0.048)。结论:小儿ARM患者骶前肿块的发生率较低(5%)。虽然阳性预测值是可靠的,但在新生儿期进行超声检查并不敏感。因此,超声检查人员在评估低型ARMs伴骶骨异常时应注意,避免忽视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
205
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (JUM) is dedicated to the rapid, accurate publication of original articles dealing with all aspects of medical ultrasound, particularly its direct application to patient care but also relevant basic science, advances in instrumentation, and biological effects. The journal is an official publication of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and publishes articles in a variety of categories, including Original Research papers, Review Articles, Pictorial Essays, Technical Innovations, Case Series, Letters to the Editor, and more, from an international bevy of countries in a continual effort to showcase and promote advances in the ultrasound community. Represented through these efforts are a wide variety of disciplines of ultrasound, including, but not limited to: -Basic Science- Breast Ultrasound- Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound- Dermatology- Echocardiography- Elastography- Emergency Medicine- Fetal Echocardiography- Gastrointestinal Ultrasound- General and Abdominal Ultrasound- Genitourinary Ultrasound- Gynecologic Ultrasound- Head and Neck Ultrasound- High Frequency Clinical and Preclinical Imaging- Interventional-Intraoperative Ultrasound- Musculoskeletal Ultrasound- Neurosonology- Obstetric Ultrasound- Ophthalmologic Ultrasound- Pediatric Ultrasound- Point-of-Care Ultrasound- Public Policy- Superficial Structures- Therapeutic Ultrasound- Ultrasound Education- Ultrasound in Global Health- Urologic Ultrasound- Vascular Ultrasound
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信