Application Of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound And Its Quantitative Analysis In Brain Glioma Resection

Objective:To evaluate the value of contrast-enhanced intraoperative ultrasonography in the initial grading of gliomas, as well as quantitative analysis of ultrasound angiography in the diagnosis of different grades of glioma and the clinical value of peritumoral edema. Methods:CEUS software analysis was used among those 60 pathologically confirmed cases of glioma patients to evaluate the peak intensity of the tumor and glioma tumor surrounding regions of interest, peak time, local blood volume, blood flow, and the average transit time, and the high-and low-grade glioma tumor and peritumoral angiographic parameters.2.From the above-mentioned 60 patients, preoperative MRI, ultrasound and intraoperative ultrasound diagnostic angiography procedure for the pathologically confirmed 42 cases of glioma were analyzed to explore three methods and pathological findings in the diagnosis of different levels of glial in the diagnosis of consistency between different grade glioma tumor consistency, as well as three methods.Results:The minimal difference from all 60 cases of gliomas, tumor and peritumoral edema in Peak%?TTP?RBV?RBF and MTT differences were statistically significant (the average rank:87.96 vs 33.04, P= 0.000,50.63 vs 70.35, P= 0.002,79.26 vs 41.74,P= 0.000,86.82 vs 34.18, P= 0.000,71.93 vs 49.07,P= 0.000) while compared to 30 cases of high and low grade glioma, tumor,the Peak%?TTP?RBV?RBF and MTT had significant differences (the average rank:39.03 vs 21.97, P= 0.000,25.28 vs 35.72, P= 0.021,37,77 vs 23.23,P= 0.001,37.97 vs 23.03,P= 0.000,33.93 vs27.07,P= 0.000), Compared with 30 cases of high and low grade glioma, peritumoral edema zone,the Peak%? TTP. RBV. RBF and MTT had significant differences (the average rank:38.57 vs 22.43, P= 0.000,25.70 vs 35.47, P= 0.033,35.47 vs 25.53, P= 0.027,37.43 vs 23.57, P= 0.002,30.73 vs20.27, P= 0.000)? In those 42 cases of glioma patients, US and pathological results exhibited low consistency (K=0.381, P=0.013), CEUS and pathological results exhibited high consistency (K=0.667, P=0.000), MRI and pathological results exhibited medium consistency (K=0.583, P=0.000), US and CEUS exhibited medium consistency (K=0.476, P=0.001), MRI and CEUS exhibited medium consistency (K=0.521, P=0.000).Conclusion:(1) CEUS have many diagnostical advantages in different level used for the diagnosis of glioma compared with MRI and US, and it can also predict the intermediate referencial basis for the diagnosis of glioma and its preliminary classification accordingly. (2) Quantitative analysis of contrast enhancement ultrasound imaging parameters can be obtained for precise intraoperative glioma grading and hence provide valuable diagnostic information for tumor and peritumoral edematous zone.