姚乐辉.3种常用骨龄测评标准对数字骨龄片的评价对比研究[J].北京体育大学学报,2018,41(1):75-81.
3种常用骨龄测评标准对数字骨龄片的评价对比研究
Comparative Study of Three Common Digital Radiograph Bone Age Evaluation Criteria
投稿时间:2015-09-06  修订日期:2017-12-01
DOI:10.19582/j.cnki.11-3785/g8.2018.01.011
中文关键词:  关键词:骨龄  骨成熟度  数字影像  儿童青少年
英文关键词:Keywords: bone age  skeletal maturity  digital radiography  children
基金项目:基金项目:河南省哲学社会科学规划项目(编号:2017BTY011)
作者单位
姚乐辉 许昌学院体育学院河南 许昌 461000 
摘要点击次数: 442
全文下载次数: 5
中文摘要:
      摘要:目的:对比3种常用骨龄测评标准在当代儿童青少年数字骨龄片评价应用中的差异,分析不同标准在数字骨龄片评价应用中出现差异的原因,从而观察中外儿童骨龄发育的差异及不同年代中国儿童骨龄发育的规律,为我国当代儿童骨龄评价提供建议。方法:分别使用G-P图谱法、CHN法和中华-05法(RUS-CHN)对6~16岁4 149名(男2 096名,女2 053名)当代儿童青少年的数字骨龄片进行判断和评价,对比不同方法的测评结果。结果:1)在6~16年龄组,RUS-CHN测得的骨龄值最接近于生活年龄,CHN测得的骨龄值均高于生活年龄,同时,CHN法骨龄值均大于RUS-CHN骨龄值,男生组2者差值处在0.4~0.9岁之间,女生组处在0.6~0.9岁之间。2)G-P图谱法在不同年龄段、不同性别测得的骨龄结果不一致,9岁前测评结果出现明显的性别差异,男生骨龄值小于生活年龄,女生骨龄值接近生活年龄;9岁以后,骨龄值均大于生活年龄,且随着年龄的增大,骨龄值与生活年龄的差值逐渐扩大。结论:1)不同骨龄评价标准对我国当代儿童青少年的骨龄测评结果差异较大。RUS-CHN法更适合当代我国儿童青少年的骨龄测评。2) 相对于上世纪50年代的白人儿童,目前我国9岁以前的男童腕骨骨化中心,特别是尺骨骨化中心发育较晚,表现出明显的种族差异,女童的骨龄发育水平基本接近于白人女童水平。进入青春期后,我国当代男女儿童青少年骨龄发育均有明显的提前,特别是骨龄发育速度逐年加快,出现了提前发育成熟现象。3) 对比CHN与RUS-CHN的测评结果可以得出,通过近三十年的生长发育,我国男女儿童的骨龄发育普遍提前了0.4~0.9岁。
英文摘要:
      Abstract: Purpose: This study compared the difference of three common digital radiograph age evaluation criteria in children, analyzed the reasons, observed the difference of bone age development between Chinese and foreign children and the rules of the development of Chinese children's bone age in different years, and provided suggestions for the assessment of the bone age of the children in China. Methods: Greulich-Pyle, CHN and RUS-CHN were used to evaluate age bone for 4149 (2096 boys, 2053 girls) 6-16 years old children, and the differences were analyzed. Results: 1) The bone age evaluated by RUS-CHN was most close to chronological age, and that evaluated by CHN was greater than chronological age and greater than that by RUS-CHN; the gap of bone age between RUS-CHN and CHN in boys was 0.4-0.9 years, and that in girls was 0.6-0.9 years. 2) The bone age evaluated by Greulich-Pyle was not consistent at different ages and sexes; there was a significant gender difference in bone age of children before the age of 9, the bone age of boys was less than chronological age, and girls’ was close to chronological age; the bone age was greater than chronological age in children after the age of 9, and the gap between bone age and chronological age gradually expanded with the increase of age. Inclusions: 1) The bone age evaluated by different methods on Chinese children is different; the RUS-CHN is more suitable for the assessment of bone age of children in China. 2) Compared with the white children in the 50s of last century, the carpal ossification center, especially the ulnar ossification center, has developed late in boys before the age of 9 in China, showing obvious racial differences; the bone age of girls in China is close to that of white girls. After entering adolesce, the development of bone age of boys and girls in China is obviously ahead of schedule, and the development speed of bone age is accelerating year by year. 3) Compared with the results of CHN and RUS-CHN, it can be found that through the growth and development of nearly 30 years, the bone age of boys and girls in China is generally 0.4 to 0.9 years old.
查看全文  查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器