4.2 Article

Comparative Analysis of CT and MRI Diagnosis of Large Vestibular Aqueduct Syndrome (LVAS) in Children

出版社

COLL PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS PAKISTAN
DOI: 10.29271/jcpsp.2019.08.753

关键词

Children; Large vestibular aqueduct syndrome (LVAS); CT; MRI; Diagnosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To analyse application value of CT and MRI in the diagnosis of large vestibular aqueduct syndrome (LVAS) in children. Study Design: A descriptive study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of ENT, Xiangyang Central Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Hubei University of Arts and Science, China, from January 2014 to January 2018. Methodology: Children with LVAS confirmed by CT, with different degrees of hearing loss and vertigo, less than 18 years, with complete clinical and imaging data, were included. Children under 2 years, with other serious diseases in organs, poor compliance, with other genetic diseases, were excluded. CT and MRI diagnosis data of 25 cases (50 diseased ears) with LVAS were retrospectively analysed. CT and MRI imaging results were observed. Midpoint and external aperture diameter of vestibular aqueduct in CT, MRI diagnosis were compared. Results: CT images showed visible vestibular aqueducts in different degrees of enlargement and bone defect shadow in different shapes. Vestibular aqueducts were enlarged in the 3D image after VR reconstruction. MRI images showed higher signal of endolymphatic sac and endolymphatic ducts in varying degrees of enlargement, and endolymphatic sac was enlarged in the 3D image after VR reconstruction. Midpoint diameter of vestibular aqueduct was larger in CT than in MRI diagnosis (p<0.001), external aperture diameter of the vestibular aqueduct was smaller in CT than in MRI diagnosis (p<0.001). Conclusion: LVAS children diagnosed as vestibular aqueduct enlargement by CT should receive MRI scan to further clarify the enlargement degree of endolymphatic sac and endolymphatic duct to increase the diagnosis rate.

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

4.2
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