Weizer G, Malone R S, Netscher D T, Walker L E, Thornby J
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Ann Plast Surg. 1995 Apr;34(4):352-61. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199504000-00003.
We prospectively evaluated 81 patients (with 160 implants) who subsequently had implants removed to determine sensitivity and specificity of both magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. Positive and negative predictive values were also calculated to determine whether a statistically beneficial interaction existed when ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were used in combination to examine an implant. Finally, the misdiagnoses were retrospectively evaluated to identify the pitfalls of the investigations. Positive diagnostic criteria were described. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 47% and 83%, respectively, and of MRI, 46% and 88%, respectively. On retrospective review by the radiologist, the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 70% and 90%, respectively, and of magnetic resonance imaging, 75.6% and 94%, respectively. Although definite conclusions could not be obtained, there did not seem to be an additive benefit from using both ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.
我们前瞻性评估了81例患者（共植入160枚植入物），这些患者随后移除了植入物，以确定磁共振成像和超声检查的敏感性和特异性。还计算了阳性和阴性预测值，以确定超声检查和磁共振成像联合用于检查植入物时是否存在统计学上有益的相互作用。最后，对误诊情况进行回顾性评估，以确定检查中的陷阱。描述了阳性诊断标准。超声检查的敏感性和特异性分别为47%和83%，磁共振成像的敏感性和特异性分别为46%和88%。经放射科医生回顾性评估，超声检查的敏感性和特异性分别为70%和90%，磁共振成像的敏感性和特异性分别为75.6%和94%。虽然无法得出明确结论，但超声检查和磁共振成像联合使用似乎并没有额外的益处。
