4.5 Article

Variability in the perilymphatic diffusion of gadolinium does not predict the outcome of intratympanic gentamicin in patients with meniere's disease

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 122, 期 4, 页码 907-911

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.23211

关键词

Endolymphatic hydrops; vertigo; magnetic resonance imaging; 3 Tesla; Level of Evidence: 4

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis: To assess the utility of imaging in planning intratympanic (IT) gentamicin (Gent) treatment in Meniere's disease (MD), we compared the dosage and outcomes of ITGent with the severity and extent of endolymphatic hydrops (EH), as evaluated by three-dimensional fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (3D-FLAIR) sequence in a 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit, after IT gadolinium administration. Study Design: Retrospective review. Methods: A total of 18 patients (10 males and 8 females; age, 28-78 years; median age, 53.2 years) with definite MD participated in the investigation. The duration of the disease ranged from 8 months to 9 years (median, 2 years), with a prevalence of vertigo spells ranging from 0.8 to 8 per month (median, 2.2), as calculated in the last 6 months. A 3D-FLAIR MRI was performed 24 hours after IT injection of diluted gadobutrol. ITGent injection was performed within a variable period of time, from 1 week to 3 weeks after 3D-FLAIR MRI. The degree and extension of EH as evaluated by 3D-FLAIR MRI were compared with the number of injections necessary to cure vertigo attacks. Vertigo results, functional level scale modifications, variations in caloric excitability, and pure-tone average modifications. Results: No statistically significant correlation was observed between severity of EH and outcomes of ITGent administration. Conclusions: The hypothesis of a reduced effect of Gent administered intratympanically in the presence of severe EH, owing to obstacled diffusion along the perilymphatic compartments, has not been confirmed in the present investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据