4.5 Article

Perfusion CT assessment of the colon and rectum: Feasibility of quantification of bowel wall perfusion and vascularization

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 81, 期 5, 页码 821-824

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.02.033

关键词

Computed tomography; Colon; Rectum; Perfusion CT

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [PB-PG-0909-19044] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)
  2. Department of Health [09/22/49, PB-PG-0909-19044, PB-PG-0110-21073] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim was to determine the feasibility of vascular quantification of the bowel wall for different anatomical segments of the colorectum. Following institutional ethical approval and informed consent, 39 patients with colorectal cancer underwent perfusion CT. Blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV), mean transit time (MTT), and permeability surface area product (PS) were assessed for different segments of the colorectum: ascending, transverse, descending colon, sigmoid, or rectum, that were distant from the tumor, and which were proven normal on contemporary colonoscopy, and subsequent imaging and clinical follow up. Mean (SD) for BF, BV, MTT and PS for the different anatomical colorectal segments were obtained and compared using a pooled t-test. Significance was at 5%. Assessment was not possible in 9 of 39 (23%) patients as the bowel wall was <= 5 mm precluding quantitative analysis. Forty-four segments were evaluated in the remaining 30 patients. Mean BF was higher in the proximal than distal colon: 24.0 versus 17.8 mL/min/100 g tissue; p = 0.009; BV, MTT and PS were not significantly different; BV: 3.46 versus 3.15 mL/100 g tissue, p = 0.45; MTT: 15.1 versus 18.3 s; p = 0.10; PS: 6.84 versus 8.97 mL/min/100 tissue, p = 0.13, respectively. In conclusion, assessment of bowel wall perfusion may fail in 23% of patients. The colorectum demonstrates segmental differences in perfusion. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据