Comparison of micro-flow imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in assessing segmental congestion after right living donor liver transplantation.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-27 DOI:10.14366/usg.24114
Taewon Han, Woo Kyoung Jeong, Jaeseung Shin, Dong Ik Cha, Kyowon Gu, Jinsoo Rhu, Jong Man Kim, Gyu-Seong Choi
{"title":"Comparison of micro-flow imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in assessing segmental congestion after right living donor liver transplantation.","authors":"Taewon Han, Woo Kyoung Jeong, Jaeseung Shin, Dong Ik Cha, Kyowon Gu, Jinsoo Rhu, Jong Man Kim, Gyu-Seong Choi","doi":"10.14366/usg.24114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to determine whether micro-flow imaging (MFI) offers diagnostic performance comparable to that of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in detecting segmental congestion among patients undergoing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 63 patients who underwent LDLT between May and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. MFI and CEUS data collected on the first postoperative day were quantified. Segmental congestion was assessed based on imaging findings and laboratory data, including liver enzymes and total bilirubin levels. The reference standard was a postoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan performed within 2 weeks of surgery. Additionally, a subgroup analysis examined patients who underwent reconstruction of the middle hepatic vein territory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity of MFI were 73.9% and 67.5%, respectively. In comparison, CEUS demonstrated a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 75.0%. These findings suggest comparable diagnostic performance, with no significant differences in sensitivity (P=0.655) or specificity (P=0.257) between the two modalities. Additionally, early postoperative laboratory values did not show significant differences between patients with and without congestion. The subgroup analysis also indicated similar diagnostic performance between MFI and CEUS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MFI without contrast enhancement yielded results comparable to those of CEUS in detecting segmental congestion after LDLT. Therefore, MFI may be considered a viable alternative to CEUS.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11532526/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.24114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to determine whether micro-flow imaging (MFI) offers diagnostic performance comparable to that of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in detecting segmental congestion among patients undergoing living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

Methods: Data from 63 patients who underwent LDLT between May and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. MFI and CEUS data collected on the first postoperative day were quantified. Segmental congestion was assessed based on imaging findings and laboratory data, including liver enzymes and total bilirubin levels. The reference standard was a postoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan performed within 2 weeks of surgery. Additionally, a subgroup analysis examined patients who underwent reconstruction of the middle hepatic vein territory.

Results: The sensitivity and specificity of MFI were 73.9% and 67.5%, respectively. In comparison, CEUS demonstrated a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 75.0%. These findings suggest comparable diagnostic performance, with no significant differences in sensitivity (P=0.655) or specificity (P=0.257) between the two modalities. Additionally, early postoperative laboratory values did not show significant differences between patients with and without congestion. The subgroup analysis also indicated similar diagnostic performance between MFI and CEUS.

Conclusion: MFI without contrast enhancement yielded results comparable to those of CEUS in detecting segmental congestion after LDLT. Therefore, MFI may be considered a viable alternative to CEUS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
显微血流成像与对比增强超声波成像在评估右侧活体肝移植术后肝节段充血方面的比较。
目的:本研究旨在确定微血流成像(MFI)在检测活体肝移植(LDLT)患者的节段性充血方面是否具有与对比增强超声成像(CEUS)相当的诊断性能:对2022年5月至12月期间接受LDLT的63名患者的数据进行了回顾性分析。对术后第一天收集的MFI和CEUS数据进行了量化。根据成像结果和实验室数据(包括肝酶和总胆红素水平)评估节段性充血。参考标准是术后两周内进行的对比增强计算机断层扫描。此外,还对接受肝中静脉区域重建的患者进行了亚组分析:结果:MFI 的敏感性和特异性分别为 73.9% 和 67.5%。相比之下,CEUS 的敏感性为 78.3%,特异性为 75.0%。这些研究结果表明,两种方法的诊断性能相当,敏感性(P=0.655)和特异性(P=0.257)无明显差异。此外,有充血和无充血患者的术后早期实验室值也无明显差异。亚组分析也表明 MFI 和 CEUS 的诊断性能相似:结论:在检测 LDLT 术后节段性充血方面,无对比增强的 MFI 与 CEUS 的结果相当。因此,MFI 可被视为 CEUS 的可行替代方案。
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 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1