Acta reumatologica portuguesa · 2009
[Musculoskeletal ultrasonography in rheumatology].
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Monteiro Paulo, de Miguel Eugénio, Mola E Martin
Аннотация
AIMS: To evaluate the evolution of musculoskeletal ultrasonography and its role in rheumatological practice by comparing recent casuistics of the ultrasonography exams performed at the Rheumatology Department of University Hospital La Paz -Madrid with the exams performed before 2003.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Revision of the ultrasonographies made between January 2007 and June 2008 and comparison with the exams performed between 1998 and 2003.
RESULTS: In the recent casuistics, that included 1,000 exams, anatomic ultrasonography represents 45.9% in contrast to 100% of the ultrasonographies preformed before 2003. The indication for the remaining 54.1% were: diagnosis of arthritis 16.3%, evaluation of inflammatory activity 6.8%, evaluation of enthesis 6.3%, study of temporal arteries 12.5% (9.7% for suspected temporal arteritis and 2.8% for disease monitoring); differential diagnosis of gout or chondrocalcinosis 2.2%, diagnosis of sacroiliitis 1.2%, diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome 1.5% and sonographic-guided procedures 7,3%.
CONCLUSIONS: At the present time, the anatomic ultrasonography represents 45.9% of all ultrasonographies in contrast to what happened before 2003. Technological advances and the progress in science promote the evolution of ultrasonography from an anatomical imaging tool to a more clinical, diagnostic, monitoring and therapeutic profile.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Revision of the ultrasonographies made between January 2007 and June 2008 and comparison with the exams performed between 1998 and 2003.
RESULTS: In the recent casuistics, that included 1,000 exams, anatomic ultrasonography represents 45.9% in contrast to 100% of the ultrasonographies preformed before 2003. The indication for the remaining 54.1% were: diagnosis of arthritis 16.3%, evaluation of inflammatory activity 6.8%, evaluation of enthesis 6.3%, study of temporal arteries 12.5% (9.7% for suspected temporal arteritis and 2.8% for disease monitoring); differential diagnosis of gout or chondrocalcinosis 2.2%, diagnosis of sacroiliitis 1.2%, diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome 1.5% and sonographic-guided procedures 7,3%.
CONCLUSIONS: At the present time, the anatomic ultrasonography represents 45.9% of all ultrasonographies in contrast to what happened before 2003. Technological advances and the progress in science promote the evolution of ultrasonography from an anatomical imaging tool to a more clinical, diagnostic, monitoring and therapeutic profile.