To compare the diagnostic findings of ultrasonography and radiography in nasal fractures. Design and Main Outcome Measures:In this prospective study, 63 patients (23 female and 40 male; mean age, 26.8 years) with clinical signs of a nasal bone fracture were investigated. All patients underwent radiography (lateral view of the nose plus occipitomental view) and ultrasonography (10-MHz ultrasound scanner) of the nasal dorsum and the lateral nasal walls and a clinical examination by 2 consultants. Thirty-six patients underwent nasal fracture reduction. Two radiographs and 3 ultrasound images of each patient were analyzed by 2 experienced readers at different times. After assessing the nasal dorsum and lateral nasal walls in radiographs and ultrasound images, they decided whether the nose was fractured or not or whether the results were uncertain.The results were analyzed by various statistical testing methods (for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and accuracy).Results: Assessment of the lateral nasal walls revealed that ultrasonography was statistically superior (P=.04) to radiography. In contrast, assessment of the nasal dorsum showed radiography to be statistically superior (P=.01) to ultrasonography. Assessment of the nasal pyramid revealed no statistical difference between radiography and ultrasonography (P =.91). Conclusion:In assessment of the nasal pyramid, ultrasonography can be considered an alternative to radiography, with equivalent diagnostic performance.

ObjectivesUltrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the most common radiological procedures for the diagnosis of tumor-like lesions of the salivary glands. The aim of the present study was to determine whether MRI or CT provide additional information besides that delivered by US.Study design/Methods109 patients with a tumor-like lesion of the salivary glands underwent surgery. MRI and CT were arranged in 73 and in 40 patients respectively, whereas all 109 patients were prospectively diagnosed by US. The results of CT, MRI and US were compared with the histological outcome. Furthermore, the recent rise in the number of CT and MRI studies was investigated.ResultsOn CT and MRI, there was no rise in the percentage of malignant tumors or advanced surgical procedures. In respect of the radiological assessment of the lesion (benign/malignant) and the correct diagnosis, CT, MRI and US were comparable in terms of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. No significant difference was found in the Chi-square test (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe evaluation of the preoperative results of CT, MRI and US revealed no advantage for CT or MRI; these procedures are only required in specific cases. An update or revision of the current preoperative diagnostic management is deemed necessary.

The commonest cause of injury was forms of violence (32%). An isolated fracture of the orbital floor had occurred in 62 cases, while concomitant facial fractures were present in the remaining 147. A total of 24 patients (11%) had an exophthalmos and 13 (9%) an enophthalmos. Most patients (69%) complained of infraorbital dysesthesia. When elevating the eyeball, the majority of patients showed a marked or severe disturbance of ocular motility (53% in abduction; 51% in adduction) and diplopia (37% in abduction; 36% in adduction). Thirteen patients required repeat surgery. After a follow-up period of 2 years, infraorbital dysesthesia was observed in only three patients, one of whom presented with a considerable persistent enophthalmos of 4 mm, and only four patients had persistent reduced motility and diplopia.

The mean times of the TOF ratios (2/4; 3/4; 4/4), skin incision, and facial nerve identification differed significantly (chi(2)=0.05; df=1; p>0.05). For the earliest skin incision (21 min), 14.3% of patients have a TOF ratio smaller than 2/4 at which a neuromuscular block of the facial nerve is possible.