Chn、Fe｜s、Rwt骨龄测定法在拉萨藏族儿童少年中应用的比较  

Comparisive research on Chn, Fels and Rwt method in measuring bone age among Tibetan children and youths in Lhasa

作　　者：刘堃[1] 任甫[2] 席焕久[2] 

机构地区：[1]辽宁医学院护理学院,锦州121001 [2]辽宁医学院基础医学院,锦州121001

出　　处：《解剖学杂志》2013年第6期1095-1097,1135,共4页Chinese Journal of Anatomy

基　　金：国家自然科学基金（30270696）

摘　　要：目的：通过对比Chn、Fels、Rwt3种骨龄测定方法在拉萨藏族儿童少年中的应用，评价其科学性，为临床合理应用骨龄测定评价藏族个体生长发育状况提供科学依据。方法：分层整群抽取拉萨地区6所大、中、小学的1001名青少年，采用Fels、Chn骨龄测定方法进行手腕部骨龄评价，Rwt法进行膝部骨龄评价、比较分析不同种测定方法测定的骨龄之间及它们与日历年龄的相关性，建立最优预测日历年龄的拟合方程。结果：Chn、Fels、Rwt法测定骨龄均小于日历年龄；不同年龄组Chn、Fels、Rwt法测定骨龄差异具有统计学意义；男生群体Chn法与Fels法、Chn法与Rwt法测得骨龄差异具有统计学意义；女生群体Chn与Fels法、Fels与Rwt法测得骨龄差异具有统计学意义；男女群体中Chn、Fels、Rwt法测定骨龄与日历年龄相关性达0．886-0．912，男生群体以Fels法与日历年龄相关性最大，由Fels法推测El历年龄的拟合方程为日历年龄-0．853×Fels法测得骨龄＋3．222，它能解释变异的83．2％，女生群体以Chn法与日历年龄相关性最大，由Chn法推测日历年龄的拟合方程为日历年龄-0．890×Chn法钡0得骨龄＋2．164，它能解释变异的82．5％。结论：骨龄测定方法间具有差异性，有些骨龄测定法不宜直接用于临床，应尽可能制定本地区、本民族的骨发育标准。Objective： To compare the Chn method, Fels method and Rwt method in measuring bone age among Tibetan children and youths in Lhasa, provide the scientific basis for using the appropriate methods to evaluate Tibetan individual growth status in clinic. Methods： 1 001 young people from the universities, middle schools and primary schools were selected from Lhasa through Stratified cluster sampling method. The three methods were used to evaluate their bone age. Differences were available in the bone age and the relation between the bone age and chronological age. The optimal equations were established for predicting actual chronological age. Results： The average of bone age by above methods was smaller than the chronological age. The different ages had different bone ages defected with three methods.7 In boys, the bone age had no significant difference between Chn method and Fels method （P = 0. 000）, and the same as,Chn method and Rwt method, while Fels method and Rwtmethod had no significant difference （P= 0. 651）. In girls, the bone age had no significant difference between Chn method and Fels method （P： 0. 000）, and the same as Fels method and Rwt method, while Cbn method and Rwt method had no significant difference method （P= 0. 385）. Over girls and boys, the correlation was 0. 886- 0. 912 between bone age and chronological age in the three methods. Inboys, the bone age by Fels had a max-relativity with chronological age, and the equation was： chronological age=0. 853 ）〈 Fels＋3. 222 with 83.2% variation. In girls, the bone age by Chn had a max-relativity with chronological age, and the equation was： chronological age= 0. 853 X Chn＋3. 222, with 82.5% variation. Conclusion= There are differences between different bone age methods, arid some bone age methods are inappropriate for direct use in clinical. We should establish a standard according region and nationality.

关 键 词：藏族 儿童少年 骨龄 

分 类 号：R195.2[医药卫生—卫生统计学]