病理与计算机两种方法定量测定股骨头坏死病灶的比较 |
Hits: 1846
Download times: 1115
Received:September 20, 2018
|
|
期刊信息:《中国骨伤》2019年32卷,第2期,第146-150页 |
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-0034.2019.02.010 |
基金项目:浙江省科技厅中西医结合骨关节病研究科技创新团队项目(编号:2011R50022-05);浙江省台州市科技项目(编号:162YW11);浙江省科技厅2017公益技术应用和软科学研究计划项目(编号:2017C33110) |
|
目的:比较计算机半自动定量检测软件系统与超薄层病理切片两种方法测量股骨头坏死病灶,为临床治疗方案的选择提供参考。
方法:2012年6月至2013年12月,采用人工全髋关节置换术治疗24例单侧晚期(ARCO分期为Ⅲ、Ⅳ期)股骨头缺血性坏死患者,男15例,女9例,年龄33~74(65.1±8.8)岁,分析其术前双髋X线片与MRI资料。分别通过术前MRI影像学资料结合计算机半自动定量检测软件系统及术后超薄层病理切片两种方法,量化股骨头坏死病灶的体积,并以X线片测量计算出的健侧标准股骨头球头体积为参考,计算两种方法下各股骨头坏死区域占整个球头的百分比。
结果:X线片上24髋标准股骨头体积为(39.58±3.29)cm3,软件测量MRI资料上24髋坏死病灶体积为(20.00±3.04)cm3,股骨头坏死病灶体积与正常标准股骨头体积比为(42.92±6.09)%,其中占40%以上16髋,30%~40%的8髋,30%以下0髋;大体病理超薄层切片测得24髋股骨头坏死病灶的体积为(19.89±3.17)cm3,超薄层切片股骨头坏死病灶的体积与正常标准股骨头的体积比为(40.33±6.36)%,其中占40%以上12髋,30%~40%的11髋,30%以下1髋。计算机软件测量与病理超薄层切片测量,两者股骨头坏死病灶的体积差为(0.113±0.466)cm3,差异无统计学意义(t=-1.186,P=0.248)。直线相关分析的结果,计算机软件和大体病理测量股骨头坏死病灶的体积存在正相关(γ=0.980,P=0.000)。
结论:股骨头坏死的严重程度与股骨头坏死区域百分比密切相关。当坏死病灶与整体股骨头的坏死百分比>30%时,患者的临床症状可能趋于加重,行人工全髋关节置换手术治疗的概率明显增加。股骨头坏死百分比对股骨头坏死的分期、预后判断、治疗方案的选择及疗效监测具有重要意义。 |
[关键词]:股骨头坏死 医学影像,计算机 病理学 |
|
Comparison between pathology and computer for quantitative determination of femoral head necrosis |
|
Abstract:
Objective: To compare computer measurement semi automatic quantitative detection software system with ultra thin layer pathological section to confirm the avascular necrosis percentage of the femoral head, and provide reference for clinical treatment options.
Methods: From June 2012 to December 2013, the X-ray and MRI of 24 patients (24 hips on unilateral) were reviewed, who had avascular necrosis of the femoral head at late stage (stage Ⅲ and Ⅳ) according to the ARCO international staging system, and performed by total hip arthroplasty. There were 15 males and 9 females, with an average age of (65.1±8.8) years old ranging 33 to 74 years old. Based on imaging system combined with computer aided technology (CAD) system and postoperative ultrathin slice, the volume of the area of femoral head necrosis were calculated. Then combining with the total volume of the femoral head was calculated by X-ray, the percentage of each femoral head necrosis area was calculated as a percentage of the whole ball head in both methods.
Results: For 24 hips, the normal femoral head volume was (39.58±3.29) cm3 on average of X-ray film, the necrotic volume was (20.00±3.04) cm3 on average of MRI by the calculation of computer. The necrotic volume occupying in the volume of the normal femoral head was (42.92±6.09)% on average ranged. The necrotic lesion size was larger than 40% in 16 hips, 30% to 40% in 8 hips, 1ess than 30% in 0 hip. Under the pathological section, the necrosis volume was (19.89±3.17) cm3, the necrotic volume occupying in the volume of the normal femoral head was (40.33±6.36)%. The necrotic lesion size was larger than 40% in 12 hips, 30% to 40% in 11 hips, 1ess than 30% in 1 hip. In computer and general measurement, the two entire femoral head volume difference was (0.113±0.466) cm3, there was no significant difference using these measurements (t=-1.186, P=0.248). After the linear correlation statistics analysis, there was a positive correlation relationship in necrotic volume between computer software and pathology measurement (γ=0.980, P=0.000).
Conclusion: The severity of the necrotic femoral head is closely related to the percentage of necrotic area. When the ratio of necrotic lesions and the whole femoral head is greater than 30%, the patients' clinical symptoms tend to aggravate, the probability of total hip arthroplasty increased significantly. It have great significances in femoral head necrosis installment, judge the prognosis, guide the selection of treatment and monitoring curative effect. |
KEYWORDS:Femur head necrosis Medical imaging,computer Pathology |
|
引用本文,请按以下格式著录参考文献: |
中文格式: | 李顺东,徐荣敏,许超,童培建,叶含笑.病理与计算机两种方法定量测定股骨头坏死病灶的比较[J].中国骨伤,2019,32(2):146~150 |
英文格式: | LI Shun-dong,XU Rong-min,XU Chao,TONG Pei-jian,YE Han-xiao.Comparison between pathology and computer for quantitative determination of femoral head necrosis[J].zhongguo gu shang / China J Orthop Trauma ,2019,32(2):146~150 |
|
View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader |
Close |
|
|
|