개에서 실험적으로 복수를 유발한 후, 컴퓨터 촬영술과 필름 촬영술을 이용한 복수량의 정량적 비교

Quantitative Comparison of Computed Radiography and Film Radiography in Detection of Peritoneal Effusion in Dogs

  • 김주형 (충북대학교 수의과대학 수의학과 동물의료센터) ;
  • 김태훈 (충북대학교 수의과대학 수의학과 동물의료센터) ;
  • 장진화 (충남대학교 수의과대학) ;
  • 장동우 (충북대학교 수의과대학 수의학과 동물의료센터)
  • Kim, Ju-Hyung (Section of Medical Imaging, Veterinary Medical Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Kim, Tae-Hun (Section of Medical Imaging, Veterinary Medical Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Chang, Jin-Hwa (College of Veterinary Medicine, Research Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Chang, Dong-Woo (Section of Medical Imaging, Veterinary Medical Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University)
  • 심사 : 2010.03.15
  • 발행 : 2010.06.30

초록

이 연구의 목적은 개에서 실험적으로 복수를 유발한 후, 컴퓨터 촬영술과 필름 촬영술을 실시하여 복수의 정량적인 비교를 한 것이다. 건강한 4 마리의 비글견과 1 마리의 말티즈 견을 사용하였으며, 각 개체마다 무균적으로 복강 내로 멸균 생리 식염수를 6 ml, 8 ml, 12 ml, 15 ml, 그리고 18 ml 을 주입하였으며, 우외측상과 복배상으로 컴퓨터 촬영과 필름 촬영을 실시하였다. 총 5명의 평가자에게 복수량에 따른 컴퓨터 촬영 사진과 필름 촬영 사진을 보였주었으며, 각 사진마다 복수량에 따라 5 가지의 점수를 순차적으로 평가하도록 하였다 (0 =복수 없음, 5 =중등도의 복수가 있음). 5명의 평가자가 평가한 데이터를 이용하여 ROC 분석 방법을 이용하여, 두 진단 모델간의 민감도와 특이도를 평가하였다. 이 연구를 통해, 복수의 양을 평가하는데 있어 두 진단 모델간의 유의적인 차이는 보이지 않았다. 그러나 RCO 분석 방법을 통해, 컴퓨터 촬영술이 필름 촬영술에 비해 민감도가 상대적으로 높았으며, 각 평가자 간에도 복수의 양을 평가하는데 있어, 상대적으로 컴퓨터 촬영술이 우위인 것을 알 수 있었다.

The aim of this report is to compare quantitatively computed radiography (CR) and screen-film radiography (SFR) in the detection of peritoneal effusion in dogs. Normal four beagle dogs and one Maltese dog were used. Each five CR and SFR abdominal images of right lateral and ventro-dorsal position were obtained after lodge of 6 ml, 8 ml, 12 ml, 15 ml, and 18 ml of normal saline by intraperitoneal injection within the abdomen. The reviewers were asked to evaluate each SFR and CR images for the presence of peritoneal effusion using the score by the presence of a peritoneal effusion on a five-point ordinal scale. A receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis compared the two imaging modalities. The present study showed that there was no statistical difference between SFR and CR in the detecting peritoneal effusion, but CR was relatively more sensitive based on the increased area under its ROC analysis. Moreover, Readers were more likely to detect peritoneal effusion on CR images than SFR.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Brettle DS, Workman A, Ellwood RP, Launders JH, Horner K, Davies RM. The imaging performance of a storage phosphor system for dental radiography. Br J Radiol 1996; 69: 256-261. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-69-819-256
  2. Fajardo LL, Hillman BJ, Hunter TB, Claypool HR, Westerman BR, Mockbee B. Excretory urography using computed radiography. Radiology 1987; 162: 345-51. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.162.2.3797646
  3. Garmer M, Hennigs SP, Jäger HJ, Schrick F, van de Loo T, Jacobs A, Hanusch A, Christmann A, Mathias K. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area silicon flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175:75-80. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.175.1.1750075
  4. Kottamasu SR, Kuhns LR, Stringer DA. Pediatric musculoskeletal computed radiography. Pediat Radiol 1997; 27: 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002470050184
  5. Marolf A, Blaik M, Ackerman N, Watson E, Gibson N, Thompson M. Comparison of computed radiography and conventional radiography in detection of small volume pneumoperitoneum. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008; 49: 227-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00355.x
  6. Matton JS, Smith C. Breakthroughs in radiography: computed radiography. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 2004; 26: 58-66.
  7. Murphy MD. Computed radiography in musculoskeletal imaging. Semin Roentgenol 1997; 32: 64-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0037-198X(97)80038-7
  8. Nakano Y, Togashi K, Nishimura K, Itoh K, Fujisawa I, Asato R, Adachi H, Itoh H, Torizuka K. Stomach and duodenum: radiographic magnification using computed radiography (CR). Radiology 1986; 160: 383-387. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.160.2.3726117
  9. Raymond K, Henley, David A Hager, Norman Ackerman. A comparison of two-dimensional ultrasonography and radiography for the detection of small amounts of free peritoneal fluid in the dog. Vet Radiol Ultraound 1989: 121-124.
  10. Swee RB, Gray JE, Beabout JW, et al. Screen-film vs. computed radiography imaging of the hand: a direct comparison. Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168:539-542. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.168.2.9016243
  11. Weatherburn GC, Ridout D, Strickland NH, Robins P, Glastonbury CM, Curati W, Harvey C, Shadbolt C. A comparison of conventional film, CR hard copy and PACS soft copy images of the chest: analyses of ROC curves and inter-observer agreement. Eur J Roentgenol 1997; 168: 539-542. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.168.2.9016243
  12. Wilson AJ, Mann FA, West OC, McEnery KW, Murphy WA Jr. Evaluation of the injured cervical spine: comparison of conventional and storage phosphor radiography with a hybrid cassette. Radiology 1994; 193: 419-22. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.193.2.7972756
  13. William RW. Acquisition hardware for digital imaging. Vet Radiol Ultraound 2008; 49: S2-S8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2007.00326.x