简介: [摘要 ] 目的 探讨分析高频彩超联合低频彩超在非典型性急性阑尾炎诊断中的临床价值。方法 方便选择 2018年 1月— 2019年 1月该院收治的 50例非典型性急性阑尾炎患者为研究对象,对所有患者给予高频彩超、低频彩超检查,并观察高频联合低频彩超与单纯展开高频、低频彩超检查在临床诊断中的应用价值。结果 经低频、高频彩超及高低频联合检查诊断符合率分别为 54.0%、 84.0%、 96.0%;其中高、低频彩超诊断符合率低于高低频联合,且低频彩超诊断符合率低于高频诊断符合率,组间相比差异有统计学意义( P<0.05)。结论 对非典型性急性阑尾炎患者在临床诊断中行高频彩超联合低频彩超检查,可进一步提高临床诊断准确率,值得在临床治疗中普及与推广。 [关键词 ] 非典型性急性阑尾炎 ;高频彩超 ;低频彩超 [Abstract] Objective To explore the clinical value of high frequency ultrasound combined with low frequency ultrasound in the diagnosis of atypical acute appendicitis. Methods 50 patients with atypical acute appendicitis from January 2018 to January 2019 were selected as the study objects. All patients were examined with high-frequency and low-frequency ultrasound, and the application value of high-frequency combined with low-frequency ultrasound and simple high-frequency and low-frequency ultrasound in clinical diagnosis was observed. Results the diagnostic coincidence rates of low frequency, high frequency and high low frequency were 54.0%, 84.0% and 96.0%, respectively. The diagnostic coincidence rates of high and low frequency were lower than that of high and low frequency, and the diagnostic coincidence rates of low frequency and high frequency were lower than that of high frequency (P < 0.05). Conclusion high frequency ultrasound combined with low frequency ultrasound in the clinical diagnosis of atypical acute appendicitis can further improve the accuracy of clinical diagnosis, which is worthy of popularization and promotion in clinical treatment.
简介:摘要目的研究在诊断非典型性急性阑尾炎时联合使用高频与低频彩超的效果。方法选取我院2014年11月~2015年8月收治的50例非典型性急性阑尾炎患者,本组患者均经手术病理诊断得以确诊。对本组患者行高频与低频彩超检查,对比两种诊断方法单独使用与联合使用时的检出率。结果联合检查的检出率是96.0%,高频彩超的检出率是78.0%,低频彩超的检出率是70.0%,联合检查的检出率要显著高于高频彩超和低频彩超,差异有统计学意义(χ2=7.14、6.89,P=0.026、0.031),高频彩超和低频彩超的检出率比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=2.19,P=0.063)。结论在诊断非典型性急性阑尾炎时,联合使用高频与低频彩超的效果要显著较好,可推广。
简介:第一类:"拼车"交通事故王某与李某二人通过朋友认识,一聊发现都住在北京市北五环外的一个小区,上班地点也相距比较近,王某正为上班挤地铁烦恼不已,就提议说以后搭李某的车,他每月分摊一半的用车费用,李某觉得很划算,就答应了。2013年1月,李某驾车搭载着王某在上班路上与陈某的车辆发生碰撞,事故中王某头部受轻伤。经交警认定,陈某负事故全部责任。但王某认为李某收了费就应当保证他的人身安全,因此将李某也一并诉至法院,要求赔偿他的各项损失约5000元。法院经审理认为,根据双方的约定,王某与李某形成了"拼车"关系,车主李某在此次事故中并不具有过错,因此依法不需对王某的损失承担赔偿责任。最终法院判定负事故全责的陈某对王某的损失承担100%赔偿责任。