4.2 Article

Prevalence of Cochlear-Facial Dehiscence in a Study of 1,020 Temporal Bone Specimens

期刊

OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY
卷 37, 期 7, 页码 967-972

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001057

关键词

Cochlear facial dehiscence; Otic capsule dehiscence; Otic capsule development; Pseudoconductive hearing loss; Sensorineural hearing loss; Temporal bone study

资金

  1. David M. Rubenstein Hearing Center at Johns Hopkins University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the prevalence of cochlear-facial dehiscence (CFD) and to examine the influence of otic capsule area, age, sex, and race on CFD. Study Design: Descriptive study of archived temporal bone specimens. Materials and Methods: Targeted sections from 1,020 temporal bone specimens were scanned and examined for CFD. Cochlear-facial partition width (CFPW) and otic capsule area (OCA), a marker of bone thickness, were measured using image analysis software. Demographic data were analyzed using multiple linear regression analysis. Results: The mean CFPW was 0.23mm (range, 0-0.92 mm; SD, 0.15 mm). Six patients were completely dehiscent (0.59%). Fallopian canal width, age, sex, race, and OCA were found to be significant predictors of CFPW. Age was found to be negatively correlated with CFPW (beta = -0.001) (p<0.005). Thicker CFPW was associated with males (beta=0.024) and non-Caucasian individuals (beta = 0.031). The mean OCA for dehiscent specimens (mean, 9.48 mm(2); range, 6.65-11.58 mm(2); SD 3.21 mm(2)) was significantly smaller than the mean OCA for nondehiscent specimens, (mean, 12.88 mm(2); range, 6.63-21.92 mm(2); SD, 2.47 mm(2)) (p<0.01). Conclusion: CFD occurred in nearly 0.6% of specimens in this temporal bone collection. Close to 35% of patients were sufficiently thin (<0.1 mm) to appear dehiscent on computed tomography scanning. Smaller OCA correlated with thinner CFPW, suggesting a developmental factor. Older, female, and Caucasian patients may have a greater risk for CFD and its associated symptoms.

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