Objective To investigate the analysis of endoscopic ultrasonography ( EUS ) assay and abdominal CT assay in the diagnosis of periampullary lesions.Methods 30 cases of patients who were diagnosed as periampullary disease looked as the samples from November 2014 to November 2015 in our hospital treatment, and counted sample of pancreatic cancer, lymphoma, pancreatic, bile duct stones, nipple the number of confirmed cases of cancer and ampullary cancer.All patients also received EUS recheck assay and abdominal CT assay, and recorded the results of review and compared with the result of diagnosis, and calculated the total diagnosis rate of two detection methods.Results Compared with abdominal CT assay, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) assay for the detection accuracy rates of pancreatic cancer, lymphoma, pancreatic, bile duct stones, papillary carcinoma and ampullary cancer increase of the two groups, the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05);endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) assay to diagnose periampullary lesions was significantly higher than total abdominal CT detection, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).Conclusions Compared with abdominal CT assay, a single disease rate of endoscopic ultrasound ( EUS) remained the same, but endoscopic ultrasound ( EUS) assay comprehensive diagnostic rate is higher, it has better clinical value.%目的：探究分析超声内镜（ EUS）检测法与腹部CT检测法在诊断壶腹周围病变中的应用价值。方法选择从2014年11月至2015年11月于我院接受治疗的30例确诊为壶腹周围病变的患者作为研究样本，并统计样本的胰头癌、胰周淋巴瘤、胆总管结石、乳头癌及壶腹癌的确诊病例数。所有患者均同时接受超声内镜检测法与腹部CT检测法的复检，记录复检结果并同确诊结果相比较，计算两种检测方法的总诊断率。结果超声内镜（ EUS）检测法对胰头癌、胰周淋巴瘤、胆总管结石、乳头癌及壶腹癌的检测准确率同腹部CT检测法相比同比增加，但未达到显著水平，两组比较，差异不具有统计学意义（ P ＞0．05）；超声内镜（EUS）检测法对壶腹周围病变的总诊断率显著高于腹部CT检测法。两组比较，差异具有统计学意义（P＜0．05）。结论超声内镜（EUS）检测法同腹部CT检测法相比，对单一疾病的诊断率基本保持一致，但超声内镜（ EUS）检测法的综合诊断率更高，具有更好的临床应用价值。
展开▼
机译：目的：通过使用组织学结果作为参考标准，研究ELASTPQ测量对良性和恶性局灶性肝病变（FLLS）的鉴别诊断的价值。材料和方法：共有154名患者。对测量剪切波速度（SWS）的每个病变进行ELASTPQ测量。评估了FL1与周围肝脏的SWS和SWS比的差异，研究了切断值。接收器操作特征（ROC）曲线被绘制以评估诊断性能。组织学作为金标准通过患者的手术获得。结果：共有154例病变，包括129名（83.7％）恶性FLLS和25（16.3％）良性物质。 SWS的恶性和良性FLLS显着差异，2.77±0.68 m / s和1.57±0.55 m / s（p <0.05）。对于良性FLL的恶性为2.23±0.36，每个FL1与周围肝实质的SWS比为2.23±0.36（P <0.05）。差分诊断的切断值为SWS和SWS比率为2.06米/秒。结论：ELASTPQ测量提供了FLLS的可靠定量刚度信息，可能有助于恶性和良性FLL之间的差异诊断。
