METHODS: By using US, 50 healthy volunteers were evaluated at level of five body areas: forehead, forearm, palm, buttock, and thigh. Two off-site operators evaluated the images to assess the difference between SMI and PD imaging and between MV-Flow and PD imaging in terms of dermis flow amount. A 0-3 scoring system was adopted.
RESULTS: SMI scored grade 0 in 0% of body areas, grade 1 in 58%, grade 2 in 33%, and grade 3 in 9%. In comparison with SMI, PD scored grade 0 in 38% of body areas, grade 1 in 56%, grade 2 in 6%, and grade 3 in 0%. MV-Flow scored grade 0 in 0% of body areas, grade 1 in 52%, grade 2 in 43%, and grade 3 in 6%. Comparted to MV-Flow, PD scored grade 0 in 53% of body areas, grade 1 in 34%, grade 2 in 13%, and grade 3 in 0%. The difference in terms of sensitivity was statistically significant for all the body areas investigated.
CONCLUSIONS: We found both SMI and MV-Flow to be superior to PD imaging and capable to demonstrate normal vascularization of the dermis.
方法:使用US,50名健康志愿者在五个身体区域的水平进行了评估:额头,前臂,棕榈,臀部,还有大腿.两名场外操作人员评估了图像,以评估SMI和PD成像之间以及MV-Flow和PD成像之间在真皮流量方面的差异。采用0-3评分系统。
结果:SMI在0%的身体区域得分0级,58%的一年级,33%的2级,和三年级的9%。与SMI相比,PD在38%的身体区域得分0级,56%的一级,6%的2级,和0%的3级。MV-Flow在0%的身体区域评分为0级,52%的一级,43%的2级,3级占6%。与MV-Flow相比,PD在53%的身体区域获得0级,34%的一级,13%的2级,和0%的3级。对于所研究的所有身体区域,灵敏度方面的差异具有统计学意义。
结论:我们发现SMI和MV-Flow均优于PD成像,并且能够显示真皮的正常血管形成。