الفهرس 
Diagnosis of Pleural effusionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 97 |  |  |
| | | from | 97 | | |
Abstract
Several imaging methods such as conventional radiography, ultrasonography,
and computerized tomography scan are being used to diagnose and asses the etiology of
pleural effusion.
CT is frequently used to assess patients with pleural abnormalities associated
with neoplasm, pneumonia and empyema.
The value of sonography for the diagnosis of pleural diseases is well known as it
helps in determining nature of pleural effusion. Chest ultrasonography play important
role in differentiating pleural lesion from parenchymal lung diseases.
The aim of this study was to compare between chest ultrasonographic and
computed tomographic fingings and study the diagnostic yield of ultrasonography in
pleural diseases
Seventy patients with pleural effusion of determined etiology admitted in chest
department, Menoufia University Hospital during the period between August 2018 to
June 2019.
Chest ultrasonography was performed in sitting and supine posture using both
abdominal and direct intercostal approaches, firstly in supine position to examine
anterior and lateral chest wall then in sitting position to examine posterior chest wall.
Findings of both chest CT and chest US were reported, and we compared
between them by statistical analysis
Finally the results showed that septations were detected by US more than CT
and the difference was statistically significant (P value <0.05). Also there was a
significant statistical difference in detection of pleural thickening by US and CT (P
value < 0.05).
It shows a highly significant statistical difference in the detection of the site of
pleural thickening by both US and CT especially on diaphragmatic pleura (p value
<0.001).
Also there was a highly significant difference in the detection of pleural nodules
by US and CT (n=14, 20%; n=1, 1.4%), (P value ≤0.001).
US detectd diaphragmatic pleural nodules more than CT and the difference was
statistically significant (P value <0.05).
There was also a significant difference in the detection of parenchymal lesions
by US and CT where US could detect collapse more than CT (P value <0.05) but CT
detected consolidation patches more than US.
The difference in echopattern of exudative and transudative pleural effusion.
Most of the exudative effusions were complex non-septated (21), echogenic (19),
complex septated (13), but transudative effusions were anechoic (11) and echogenic (6)
Pleural thickening, pleural nodules and septations were seen only in exudative
effusions and were not seen in any of the transudative effusions. There was a highly
significant difference between exudative and transudative pleural effusions regarding
Summary
60
pleural thickening and only significant difference between them regarding pleural
nodules and septations (P value <0.005).
There was also a highly significant difference between both types of pleural
effusions regarding parenchymal lesion where collapse was found more commonly in
transudative effusion, whereas masses and consolidation patches were found more in
exudative effusions (P value <0.001).
There was a highly significant statistical difference between echogenic types of
pleural effusion regarding CT attenuation values, where the highest value was found in
complex septated effusion (HU= 14.6±3.2) and the least was found in anechoic effusion
(HU= 7.9±2.9).