4.5 Article

Differential Diagnosis of Endolymphatic Hydrops Between Probable and Definite Meniere's Disease via Magnetic Resonance Imaging

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 165, 期 5, 页码 696-700

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0194599821990680

关键词

endolymphatic hydrops; diagnostic criteria; magnetic resonance imaging; Meniere's disease; grades

资金

  1. Sky Image Research Foundation [Z-2014-07-1912]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to investigate the grade of endolymphatic hydrops in patients with Meniere's disease and determine if MRI could assist in differential diagnosis between probable and definite Meniere's disease. Results showed a higher grade of endolymphatic hydrops in definite Meniere's disease patients compared to probable patients, suggesting MRI could be an effective tool in clinical differentiation.
Objectives To investigate the grade of endolymphatic hydrops in patients with probable and definite Meniere's disease via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to determine whether MRI could assist clinicians in differential diagnosis between probable and definite Meniere's disease. Study Design Prospective study. Setting Three-dimensional FLAIR MRI (fluid-attenuated inversion recovery) to examine endolymphatic hydrops in Meniere's disease. Methods A total of 51 patients diagnosed with probable (n = 20) or definite (n = 31) unilateral Meniere's disease were enrolled. Three-dimensional FLAIR MRI was performed to evaluate the grade of endolymphatic hydrops. The differences in endolymphatic hydrops between the probable and definite groups were analyzed. Results The grade of endolymphatic hydrops was more severe in the definite group than in the probable group (P < .05). Conclusion MRI revealed a higher grade of endolymphatic hydrops in patients with definite Meniere's disease than in patients with probable Meniere's disease. As a result, it may be clinically useful and an effective tool in the differentiation between definite and probable Meniere's disease.

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