2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrnm.2015.05.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chronic inflammatory middle ear disease: Postoperative CT and MRI findings

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…3 amongst 9 also showed cholesteatoma during surgery, who did not show cholesteatoma in MRI. In present study, sensitivity was 84%, specificity was 100%, 10 Vaid et al evaluated the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosis of cholesteatoma and correlated imaging findings with intraoperative findings, based on specific MRI findings, presence of cholesteatoma was reported in 17 out of 31 patients and all 31 patients underwent surgery and 19 patients had confirmed intraoperative cholesteatoma and similar to present study, this study also showed high sensitivity of a specific sequence based MRI examination in detection of cholesteatoma and in differentiating cholesteatoma from postoperative inflammatory/granulation tissue. 4 Martin et al studied with pre-and post-contrast magnetic resonance (MR) images to assess the role of MR imaging in the recognition of middle ear tissue abnormalities and reported that granulation tissue constantly appeared enhanced on studies done with gadolinium diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), unlike cholesteatoma, cholesterol granuloma, or brain herniation into the middle ear cavities, moreover, when granulation tissue was associated with other soft-tissue masses, Gd-DTPAenhanced MR images allowed accurate definition of the site and the extension of each lesion.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 48%
“…3 amongst 9 also showed cholesteatoma during surgery, who did not show cholesteatoma in MRI. In present study, sensitivity was 84%, specificity was 100%, 10 Vaid et al evaluated the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosis of cholesteatoma and correlated imaging findings with intraoperative findings, based on specific MRI findings, presence of cholesteatoma was reported in 17 out of 31 patients and all 31 patients underwent surgery and 19 patients had confirmed intraoperative cholesteatoma and similar to present study, this study also showed high sensitivity of a specific sequence based MRI examination in detection of cholesteatoma and in differentiating cholesteatoma from postoperative inflammatory/granulation tissue. 4 Martin et al studied with pre-and post-contrast magnetic resonance (MR) images to assess the role of MR imaging in the recognition of middle ear tissue abnormalities and reported that granulation tissue constantly appeared enhanced on studies done with gadolinium diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), unlike cholesteatoma, cholesterol granuloma, or brain herniation into the middle ear cavities, moreover, when granulation tissue was associated with other soft-tissue masses, Gd-DTPAenhanced MR images allowed accurate definition of the site and the extension of each lesion.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 48%
“…Subjective tests are mainly used by otolaryngologists and have been reported to have higher sensitivity and specificity in detecting the presence or absence of middle ear disorders. 25,26 On the other hand, the objective measures such as the acoustic immittance measure are used primarily by audiologists. The latter measures are widely used because they are simple, quick to administer, cost effective, and time efficient.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This also makes it difficult in postoperative cases in differentiating recurrent disease from simple granulation tissue. [9] Our study shows that HRCT had a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 58.3% in detection of cholesteatomatous CSOM. This was comparable to studies by Thukral et al [10] and Gomaa et al [11] False negative cases could be attributed to presence of only soft tissue without bony destruction and inability to characterise the soft tissue at CT. False positive cases at CT can be attributed to mere bony deossification which can occur in non-cholesteatomatous CSOM being interpreted as destruction that occur in cholesteatoma.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%