4.0 Article

Levator ani evaluation at transperineal elastography in women with deep infiltrating endometriosis postoperatively

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.101663

关键词

Elastography; Deep infiltrating endometriosis; Ultrasound

资金

  1. fund for scientific research of Chinese Preventive Medicine Association [201809031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To explore whether operation can change the elasticity of levator ani in deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) with operation and pharmacotherapy using transperineal elastography. Methods: Total thirty-four patients who were diagnosed as DIE were included in the study. Transperineal elastography were performed in all cases preoperatively and postoperatively. The levator ani was evaluated by means of the scoring system and strain ratio (SR) values on maximal Valsalva and quiescent condition, respectively. Results: On quiescent condition, the preoperative mean elastography scores and SR of the levator ani were statistically significantly higher than the postoperative ones in both shaving technique group and segmental colorectal resection group. And on maximal Valsalva, the preoperative mean elastography scores and SR of the levator ani were statistically significantly lower than the postoperative ones in both groups. After surgery and 6 cycles of GnRHa therapy, the mean elastography score and SR of the levator ani were statistically significantly lower than before GnRHa therapy in shaving technique group on quiescent condition. And on maximal Valsalva, the mean elastography score and SR were statistically higher than before GnRHa therapy. However, in segmental colorectal resection group, the differences were not observed before and following 6 cycles of GnRHa therapy. Conclusion: The elasticity of levator ani of DIE was changed by both shaving technique and segmental colorectal resection. And transperineal elastography could access the alterations. (C) 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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

4.0
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