MedElevator
Войти в исследования Radiology · 1994
Tubal rupture in patients with ectopic pregnancy: diagnosis with transvaginal US.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Frates M C, Brown D L, Doubilet P M, Hornstein M D
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine whether sonography can help diagnose tubal rupture in patients with ectopic pregnancy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors reviewed the transvaginal ultrasound (US) scans and medical records of 132 consecutive patients with tubal pregnancy confirmed at surgery performed within 24 hours of undergoing US.
RESULTS: Adnexal masses were seen in 93 patients at US. Thirty-four patients had a tubal ring, and 59 had a complex mass. The frequency of tubal rupture was similar for both groups. The adnexal mass was significantly smaller in patients without a ruptured tube, but there was considerable overlap. Rupture was present in 21% of patients with no sign of or a trace of intraperitoneal fluid, increasing steadily to 63% in patients with a large amount of free fluid. Even though the amount of fluid was the best predictor of rupture, it was not completely reliable, as 37% of patients in whom a large amount of fluid was found had intact tubes.
CONCLUSION: No finding at transvaginal US is a reliable indicator of rupture. Contrary to findings from previous studies, the appearance of the adnexal mass, if present, is not related to tubal rupture.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors reviewed the transvaginal ultrasound (US) scans and medical records of 132 consecutive patients with tubal pregnancy confirmed at surgery performed within 24 hours of undergoing US.
RESULTS: Adnexal masses were seen in 93 patients at US. Thirty-four patients had a tubal ring, and 59 had a complex mass. The frequency of tubal rupture was similar for both groups. The adnexal mass was significantly smaller in patients without a ruptured tube, but there was considerable overlap. Rupture was present in 21% of patients with no sign of or a trace of intraperitoneal fluid, increasing steadily to 63% in patients with a large amount of free fluid. Even though the amount of fluid was the best predictor of rupture, it was not completely reliable, as 37% of patients in whom a large amount of fluid was found had intact tubes.
CONCLUSION: No finding at transvaginal US is a reliable indicator of rupture. Contrary to findings from previous studies, the appearance of the adnexal mass, if present, is not related to tubal rupture.