Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
High‐frequency ultrasound evaluation of morphea: Retrospective analytical study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
High‐frequency ultrasound evaluation of morphea: Retrospective analytical study
Do you wish to request the book?
High‐frequency ultrasound evaluation of morphea: Retrospective analytical study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
High‐frequency ultrasound evaluation of morphea: Retrospective analytical study
2024
Overview
Background To date, there are no accepted outcome measures to monitor morphea, and consensus on specific monitoring criteria for morphea remains elusive. A few studies have assessed the criterion validity of skin ultrasound in morphea. So, in this study, we approach ultrasound findings in morphea lesions. Material and methods This was a retrospective‐analytical study conducted between December 2021 and May 2023. Patients were clinically evaluated at a dermatology outpatient clinic and then referred for high‐frequency ultrasound (HF‐US) evaluation and were selected to be included in this study. The lesions were confirmed by histopathology as well. Sonographic evaluations were performed on the lesion site and the symmetrical uninvolved other side. Dermal thickness and dermal echogenicities were recorded. Statistical analysis of group differences was performed by using the 2‐tailed Student t‐test. A p‐value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Forty‐one morphea lesions in the inflammatory phase of 27 patients were included in the study. The mean dermal thickness of morphea lesions was 1107.97 ± 414.3 and the mean dermal thickness of the control side was 1094.65 ± 331.06, The difference between these two variables was not statistically significant. The mean dermal density of lesions was 49.13 ± 18.97 and the mean dermal density of the control side was 52.22 ± 25.33. The difference between these two variables was not statistically significant. Conclusion This study shows that HF‐US indicated increasing dermal thickness and reducing the dermal density of the morphea lesions in the inflammatory phase confirmed with the histopathology.
Publisher
John Wiley and Sons Inc
Subject
