Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:56:49.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Detection of recurrent and primary acquired cholesteatoma with echo-planar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2012

A Evlice
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
Ö Tarkan*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
M Kiroğlu
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
K Biçakci
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
S Özdemir
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
Ü Tuncer
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
E Çekiç
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Özgür Tarkan, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey 01330 Fax: +90 3223386527 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the diagnostic value of echo-planar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in pre-operative detection of suspected primary acquired, residual and/or recurrent cholesteatoma.

Materials and methods:

Fifty-eight chronic otitis media patients with suspected cholesteatoma were thus evaluated two weeks pre-operatively, and divided into group one (41 patients, no previous surgery, suspected primary acquired cholesteatoma) and group two (17 patients, previous surgery, scheduled ‘second-look’ or revision surgery for suspected residual or recurrent cholesteatoma). Patients' operative, histopathology and radiological findings were compared.

Results:

Cholesteatoma was found in 63 per cent of group one patients and 58 per cent of group two patients at surgery. Histopathological examination of surgical specimens indicated that imaging accurately predicted the presence or absence of cholesteatoma in 90 per cent of group one (37/41; 23 true positives, 14 true negatives) and 76 per cent of group two (13/17; seven true positives, six true negatives). Three patients in both groups were false negative diagnoses and one patient in both groups was a false positive. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of echo-planar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of cholesteatoma were respectively 88, 93, 95 and 82 per cent in group one and 70, 85, 87 and 66 per cent in group two.

Conclusion:

Echo-planar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging is a valuable technique with high sensitivity and specificity for cholesteatoma imaging.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Venail, F, Bonafe, A, Poirrier, V, Mondain, M, Uziel, A. Comparison of echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging and delayed postcontrast T1-weighted MR imaging for the detection of residual cholesteatoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1363–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Parisier, SC, Hanson, MB, Han, JC, Cohen, AJ, Selkin, BA. Pediatric cholesteatoma: an individualized, single-stage approach. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;115:107–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Jansen, C. Posterior tympanotomy: access to the middle ear with preservation of the external ear canal [in German]. Arch Klin Exp Ohren Nasen Kehlkopfheilkd 1967;188:558–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Tierney, PA, Pracy, P, Blaney, SP, Bowdler, DA. An assessment of the value of the preoperative computed tomography scans prior to otoendoscopic ‘second look’ in intact canal wall mastoid surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 1999;24:274–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Vanden Abeele, D, Coen, E, Parizel, PM, Van de Heyning, P. Can MRI replace a second look operation in cholesteatoma surgery? Acta Otolaryngol 1999;119:555–61Google ScholarPubMed
6Kimitsuki, T, Suda, Y, Kawano, H, Tono, T, Komune, S. Correlation between MRI findings and second-look operation in cholesteatoma surgery. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2001;63:291–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Blaney, SP, Tierney, P, Oyarazabal, M, Bowdler, DA. CT scanning in “second look” combined approach tympanoplasty [in French]. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2000;121:7981Google ScholarPubMed
8Wake, M, Robinson, JM, Witcombe, JB, Bazerbachi, S, Stansbie, JM, Phelps, PD. Detection of recurrent cholesteatoma by computerized tomography after ‘closed cavity’ mastoid surgery. J Laryngol Otol 1992;106:393–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Plouin-Gaudon, I, Bossard, D, Fuchsmann, C, Ayari-Khalfallah, S, Froehlich, P. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for evaluation of pediatric recurrent cholesteatomas. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2010;74:22–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Thomassin, JM, Braccini, F. Role of imaging and endoscopy in the follow up and management of cholesteatomas operated by closed technique [in French]. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 1999;120:7581Google ScholarPubMed
11Vercruysse, JP, De Foer, B, Pouillon, M, Somers, T, Casselman, J, Offeciers, E. The value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis of primary acquired and residual cholesteatoma: a surgical verified study of 100 patients. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1461–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Aikele, P, Kittner, T, Offergeld, C, Kaftan, H, Hüttenbrink, KB, Laniado, M. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of cholesteatoma in pediatric and adult patients who have undergone middle ear surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:261–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Stasolla, A, Magliulo, G, Parrotto, D, Luppi, G, Marini, M. Detection of postoperative relapsing/residual cholesteatomas with diffusion-weighted echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:879–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Williams, MT, Ayache, D, Alberti, C, Héran, F, Lafitte, F, Elmaleh-Bergès, M et al. Detection of postoperative residual cholesteatoma with delayed contrast-enhanced MR imaging: initial findings. Eur Radiol 2003;13:169–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Ayache, D, Williams, MT, Lejeune, D, Corre, A. Usefulness of delayed postcontrast magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of residual cholesteatoma after canal wall-up tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 2005;115:607–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16De Foer, B, Vercruysse, JP, Bernaerts, A, Meersschaert, J, Kenis, C, Pouillon, M et al. Middle ear cholesteatoma: non-echo-planar diffusion-weighted MR imaging versus delayed gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging – value in detection. Radiology 2010;255:866–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Kasbekar, AV, Scoffings, DJ, Kenway, B, Cross, J, Donnelly, N, Lloyd, SWK et al. Non echo planar, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction sequence) compared with echo planar imaging for the detection of middle-ear cholesteatoma. J laryngol Otol 2011;125:386–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18De Foer, B, Vercruysse, JP, Bernaerts, A, Maes, J, Deckers, F, Michiels, J et al. The value of single-shot turbo spin echo diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the detection of middle ear cholesteatoma. Neuroradiology 2007;49:841–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19De Foer, B, Vercruysse, JP, Bernaerts, A, Deckers, F, Pouillon, M, Somers, T et al. Detection of postoperative residual cholesteatoma with non-echo-planar diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:513–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Clark, MPA, Westerberg, BD, Fenton, DM. The ongoing dilemma of residual cholesteatoma detection: are current magnetic resonance imaging techniques good enough? J Laryngol Otol 2010;124:1300–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed