4.2 Article

Superb Microvascular Imaging Compared with Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Assessing Laser Ablation Treatment of Benign Thyroid Nodules

Journal

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 2018, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2018/1025657

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To compare superb microvascular imaging (SMI) with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for evaluating the ablation of benign thyroid nodules. Methods. 225 Patients with 256 benign thyroid nodules underwent conventional ultrasound, color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI), CEUS, and SMI before and after laser ablation. They were routinely followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The volume and volume reduction rate of the ablated nodules was calculated. Results. On SMI, the complete ablated nodules had no microvascular perfusion, while the incompletely ablated nodules had microvascular perfusion at the edge of the nodule. The percentages of the detected incompletely ablated nodules of SMI (37/256, 14.45%) and CEUS (41/256, 16.02%) were comparable, and both were significantly higher than CDFI (P< 0.001). CEUS was used as the criterion to determine whether the nodules were completely ablated. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of SMI for detecting incompletely ablated nodules were 90.2, 98.2, and 100%, respectively. The volume of ablated nodules, as measured on ultrasound, was greater than that on CEUS or SMI (both P< 0.001), while CEUS and SMI were similar. The average volume reduction rate of nodules at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months was 40.25, 54.98, 76.83, and 95.43%, respectively. Conclusion. SMI sensitively detected the capillaries within residual thyroid nodules after laser ablation. The lesion size and detection rate of incompletely ablated nodules via SMI was consistent with that of CEUS. SMI may replace CEUS in certain cases for monitoring the curative effect of laser ablation for benign thyroid nodules.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available