Ultrasound versus computed tomography in the imaging of orbital floor fractures

Jank, Siegfried; Emshoff, Rüdiger; Etzelsdorfer, Monika; Strobl, Heinrich; Nicasi, A.; Norer, B

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2003.01.004

Cited by 43 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Jank et al 11 suggested using ultrasound as an alternative method for the diagnosis of fractures of the orbital floor. In another study by Jank et al 7 there was no statistically significant difference between ultrasonography and CT in the diagnosis of orbital rim fractures and orbital floor fractures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…4,5 CT has been considered as a gold standard and it is the procedure of choice for diagnosing complex facial fractures, especially mid-facial fractures. [6][7][8] However, CT techniques are expensive, are not readily available and provide a high patient exposure dose. Owing to the proximity of the eyes and the thyroid gland, there is an increased risk for cataract and thyroid carcinoma from X-ray exposure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ultrasonography is a non-invasive, inexpensive technique that has been shown to reveal fractures of different areas of the face, such as the nasal bone, 2,3,6 orbital floor, 7,11 anterior wall of the frontal sinus 6 and zygomatic fractures. 8,12 Previous studies have evaluated the use of ultrasonography in detecting nasal bone fractures in cases where a fracture had already been diagnosed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of ultrasonography with computed tomography in the diagnosis of nasal bone fractures

Javadrashid¹,

Khatoonabad²,

Shams³

et al. 2011

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare ultrasonography with CT in the diagnosis of nasal bone fractures. Methods: 40 patients (9 female and 31 male) with mid-facial fractures, which were suspected nasal bone fractures, were included. All of the patients had mid-facial CT images. Ultrasonography with a 7.5 MHz transducer (Aloka 3500, Tokyo, Japan) was used to evaluate the nasal bone fractures. All of the sonograms were compared with CT findings for sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. A x 2 test was applied to the data to assess statistical significance. Results: CT diagnosed nasal bone fractures in 24 of the 40 patients (9 unilateral fractures and 15 bilateral fractures) while ultrasonography diagnosed the fractured bones in 23 patients (9 unilateral fractures and 14 bilateral fractures). Ultrasonography missed one fractured bone in a bilateral fractured case and a unilateral fracture was also missed (two false-negative results). The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography in assessing nasal bone fracture in comparison with CT were 94.9% and 100%, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) and the negative predictive value (NPV) of ultrasonographic evaluation of the nasal bone fractures were 100% and 95.3%, respectively. The x 2 test did not show any significant difference between CT and ultrasonography in diagnosis of nasal bone fractures (P 5 0.819). Conclusion: Ultrasonography can be used as a first line of diagnostic imaging for evaluating nasal bone fractures, especially in children and pregnant women.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of ultrasonography with computed tomography in the diagnosis of nasal bone fractures

Javadrashid¹,

Khatoonabad²,

Shams³

et al. 2011

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…15,16 In the present study, we were able to observe discontinuity lines caused by osteotomy, although this was not the focus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Ultrasound evaluation of intra-osseous cavity: A preliminary study in pig mandibles

Ferreira

Costa

Tucunduva

et al. 2016

Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…10 Instead, some investigators have recommended orbital ultrasonography as an alternative to conventional CT. The available reports, however, are not uniform in terms of its accuracy, [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] probably because of imperfect methodologies and using outdated ultrasonography equipment in older series. [18][19][20] Another suggested alternative to conventional CT in detecting orbital fractures is CBCT.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparable study of the diagnostic performance of orbital ultrasonography and CBCT in patients with suspected orbital floor fractures

Johari‬¹,

Ghavimi²,

Mahmoudian³

et al. 2016

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography and CBCT against CT in detecting orbital floor fractures. Methods: A total of 120 orbits with clinical suspicion of isolated orbital floor fractures underwent multislice CT scanning with coronal reconstruction; orbital ultrasonography using a standard machine equipped with a 7-to 10-MHz linear transducer; and CBCT. Patients with severe head and face injuries were not included. The diagnostic performance of ultrasonography and CBCT was reported assuming conventional CT as the imaging method of choice. Results: According to CT findings, fractures of the floor were present in 39 orbits. The sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value and negative-predictive value of ultrasonography in detecting orbital floor fractures were 87.2%, 100%, 100% and 94.2%, respectively. The corresponding values for CBCT were 97.4%, 97.5%, 95.0%, and 98.8%, respectively. Areas under the receiver operator characteristics curves of orbital floor fracture detection were 0.94 for ultrasonography and 0.98 for CBCT. Conclusions: When conventional CT cannot be performed in patients with clinically suspected orbital floor fracture and no severe or complex head and face injuries, CBCT could be used in detecting fractures as a reliable surrogate. Because of a lower sensitivity of ultrasonography, however, its use is limited in this regard.

show abstract

Ultrasound versus computed tomography in the imaging of orbital floor fractures

Cited by 43 publications

References 18 publications

Comparison of ultrasonography with computed tomography in the diagnosis of nasal bone fractures

Comparison of ultrasonography with computed tomography in the diagnosis of nasal bone fractures

Ultrasound evaluation of intra-osseous cavity: A preliminary study in pig mandibles

A comparable study of the diagnostic performance of orbital ultrasonography and CBCT in patients with suspected orbital floor fractures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About