超声与磁共振成像诊断踝关节后外侧疼痛的比较分析。

IF 1.3 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Journal of Ultrasonography Pub Date : 2025-01-23 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.15557/JoU.2025.0002
Dan Mocanu, Katarzyna Bokwa-Dąbrowska, Katarina Nilsson Helander, Pawel Szaro
{"title":"超声与磁共振成像诊断踝关节后外侧疼痛的比较分析。","authors":"Dan Mocanu, Katarzyna Bokwa-Dąbrowska, Katarina Nilsson Helander, Pawel Szaro","doi":"10.15557/JoU.2025.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of ultrasound compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a reference in detecting peroneus brevis split ruptures.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We re-reviewed 112 ultrasound examinations performed between 2020 and 2021 by three musculoskeletal radiologists with 8-10 years of experience. Patients were referred due to pain lasting at least 8 months in the posterolateral ankle. Ultrasound was performed using a LOGIQ E9 General Electric device with a 6-15 MHz or 18 MHz probe. Sixty-three patients who underwent MRI within 8 months and were included in the study. Ultrasound and MRI findings were categorized as: a) no peroneus split, b) presence of peroneus split, or c) unspecific findings. MRI served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven cases (11.1%) were false positives (diagnosed on ultrasound but not MRI) and 9 (14.3%) were false negatives (missed by ultrasound but detected on MRI). Six cases (9.5%) were true positives (identified on both ultrasound and MRI), and 41 patients (65.1%) were true negatives (negative on both modalities). Ultrasound showed a sensitivity of 40.0% and specificity of 85.4%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 46.2%, while the negative predictive value (NPV) was 82.0%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ultrasound demonstrated limited sensitivity but high specificity in detecting peroneus brevis split ruptures.</p>","PeriodicalId":45612,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasonography","volume":"25 100","pages":"20250002"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11893017/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing pain in the posterolateral region of the ankle.\",\"authors\":\"Dan Mocanu, Katarzyna Bokwa-Dąbrowska, Katarina Nilsson Helander, Pawel Szaro\",\"doi\":\"10.15557/JoU.2025.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of ultrasound compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a reference in detecting peroneus brevis split ruptures.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We re-reviewed 112 ultrasound examinations performed between 2020 and 2021 by three musculoskeletal radiologists with 8-10 years of experience. Patients were referred due to pain lasting at least 8 months in the posterolateral ankle. Ultrasound was performed using a LOGIQ E9 General Electric device with a 6-15 MHz or 18 MHz probe. Sixty-three patients who underwent MRI within 8 months and were included in the study. Ultrasound and MRI findings were categorized as: a) no peroneus split, b) presence of peroneus split, or c) unspecific findings. MRI served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven cases (11.1%) were false positives (diagnosed on ultrasound but not MRI) and 9 (14.3%) were false negatives (missed by ultrasound but detected on MRI). Six cases (9.5%) were true positives (identified on both ultrasound and MRI), and 41 patients (65.1%) were true negatives (negative on both modalities). Ultrasound showed a sensitivity of 40.0% and specificity of 85.4%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 46.2%, while the negative predictive value (NPV) was 82.0%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ultrasound demonstrated limited sensitivity but high specificity in detecting peroneus brevis split ruptures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45612,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ultrasonography\",\"volume\":\"25 100\",\"pages\":\"20250002\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11893017/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ultrasonography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15557/JoU.2025.0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasonography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15557/JoU.2025.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价超声与磁共振成像(MRI)对腓骨短肌劈裂的诊断价值。材料和方法:我们重新回顾了2020年至2021年期间由三位具有8-10年经验的肌肉骨骼放射科医生进行的112次超声检查。患者因踝关节后外侧疼痛持续至少8个月而就诊。超声使用LOGIQ E9通用电气设备,6-15 MHz或18 MHz探头。在8个月内接受MRI检查的63例患者被纳入研究。超声和MRI检查结果分为:a)无腓骨肌分裂,b)腓骨肌分裂存在,或c)非特异性发现。MRI作为参考标准。计算敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和准确性。结果:假阳性7例(11.1%),假阴性9例(14.3%),超声未检出,MRI检出。6例(9.5%)为真阳性(超声和MRI), 41例(65.1%)为真阴性(两种方式均为阴性)。超声检查敏感性为40.0%,特异性为85.4%。阳性预测值(PPV) 46.2%,阴性预测值(NPV) 82.0%。结论:超声对腓骨短肌劈裂骨折的检测灵敏度有限,但特异性较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative analysis of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing pain in the posterolateral region of the ankle.

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of ultrasound compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a reference in detecting peroneus brevis split ruptures.

Material and methods: We re-reviewed 112 ultrasound examinations performed between 2020 and 2021 by three musculoskeletal radiologists with 8-10 years of experience. Patients were referred due to pain lasting at least 8 months in the posterolateral ankle. Ultrasound was performed using a LOGIQ E9 General Electric device with a 6-15 MHz or 18 MHz probe. Sixty-three patients who underwent MRI within 8 months and were included in the study. Ultrasound and MRI findings were categorized as: a) no peroneus split, b) presence of peroneus split, or c) unspecific findings. MRI served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated.

Results: Seven cases (11.1%) were false positives (diagnosed on ultrasound but not MRI) and 9 (14.3%) were false negatives (missed by ultrasound but detected on MRI). Six cases (9.5%) were true positives (identified on both ultrasound and MRI), and 41 patients (65.1%) were true negatives (negative on both modalities). Ultrasound showed a sensitivity of 40.0% and specificity of 85.4%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 46.2%, while the negative predictive value (NPV) was 82.0%.

Conclusions: Ultrasound demonstrated limited sensitivity but high specificity in detecting peroneus brevis split ruptures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Ultrasonography
Journal of Ultrasonography RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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