The Journal of international medical research · 2019
Multidetector computed tomography in the diagnosis of spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection: changes in diameter on nonenhanced scan and stent treatment follow-up.
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.
Yan Weiqiang, Huang Rong, Shi Qiao, Shan Huiming, Zhu Yi, Cheng Guanxun, Quan Xianyue
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to assess the changes in diameter of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) in patients with spontaneous isolated SMA dissection (SISMAD) on nonenhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and determine the clinical value of follow-up MDCT after endovascular stent placement (ESP).
METHODS: The diameters of the SMA and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) as measured on nonenhanced MDCT were compared between 20 patients with SISMAD and 20 control subjects. ESP was performed in 14 patients with SISMAD, and follow-up MDCT was performed after ESP.
RESULTS: The mean diameter of the SMA in the SISMAD group and control group was 11.69 ± 1.26 and 7.10 ± 0.97 mm, respectively, with a statistically significant difference. The SMA diameters were even larger than the SMV diameters. Follow-up MDCT showed stent patency in 13 patients and occlusion in 1 patient.
CONCLUSIONS: An enlarged diameter of the SMA on nonenhanced MDCT is an important finding for diagnosis of SISMAD, and MDCT is a valuable follow-up method after ESP for SISMAD.
METHODS: The diameters of the SMA and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) as measured on nonenhanced MDCT were compared between 20 patients with SISMAD and 20 control subjects. ESP was performed in 14 patients with SISMAD, and follow-up MDCT was performed after ESP.
RESULTS: The mean diameter of the SMA in the SISMAD group and control group was 11.69 ± 1.26 and 7.10 ± 0.97 mm, respectively, with a statistically significant difference. The SMA diameters were even larger than the SMV diameters. Follow-up MDCT showed stent patency in 13 patients and occlusion in 1 patient.
CONCLUSIONS: An enlarged diameter of the SMA on nonenhanced MDCT is an important finding for diagnosis of SISMAD, and MDCT is a valuable follow-up method after ESP for SISMAD.