Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:07:29.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Low accuracy of 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in identification of the bony defect in patients with superior semi-circular canal dehiscence syndrome: case–control study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2021

V Jaiswal ,
C Fenlon ,
I McLaughlin ,
I McCrea  and
G Kontorinis Open the ORCID record for G Kontorinis [Opens in a new window]
V Jaiswal
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
C Fenlon
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
I McLaughlin
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
I McCrea
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
G Kontorinis*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Prof Georgios Kontorinis, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, 1345 Govan Road, GlasgowG51 4TF, Scotland, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To determine the accuracy of 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in identifying the bony defect in superior semi-circular canal dehiscence syndrome.

Methods

A retrospective case–control study was conducted in tertiary university settings. The study included 12 patients with a definite diagnosis of superior semi-circular canal dehiscence syndrome and a control group comprising 12 non-superior semi-circular canal dehiscence syndrome patients, all with available magnetic resonance imaging data. The imaging scans were anonymised, and reviewed blindly and independently by three experienced radiologists.

Results

There was low sensitivity and specificity, with average values of 47 per cent (range, 16.7–66.7 per cent) and 69 per cent (range, 66.7–75 per cent) respectively. Cohen's kappa was 0.75, indicating substantial inter-rater reliability.

Conclusion

Given the low accuracy of 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging in identifying the bony defect in superior semi-circular canal dehiscence syndrome, despite its value in inner-ear imaging, computed tomography or equivalent should be used when superior semi-circular canal dehiscence syndrome is suspected.

Keywords

Computed TomographyX-RayMagnetic Resonance ImagingLabyrinthVertigoSuperior Canal Dehiscence Syndrome
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 136 , Issue 11 , November 2022 , pp. 1062 - 1065
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

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.)

Footnotes

Prof G Kontorinis takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Minor, LB, Solomon, D, Zinreich, JS, Zee, DS. Sound- and/or pressure-induced vertigo due to bone dehiscence of the superior semicircular canal. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:249–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browaeys, P, Larson, TL, Wong, ML, Patel, U. Can MRI replace CT in evaluating semicircular canal dehiscence? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1421–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lookabaugh, S, Kelly, HR, Carter, MS, Niesten, ME, McKenna, MJ, Curtin, H et al. Radiologic classification of superior canal dehiscence: implications for surgical repair. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:118–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beyazal, Çeliker F, Özgür, A, Çeliker, M, Beyazal, M, Turan, A, Terzi, S et al. The efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of superior semicircular canal dehiscence. J Int Adv Otol 2018;14:68–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inal, M, Burulday, V, Bayar, Muluk N, Kaya, A, Şimşek, G, Ünal, Daphan B. Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography for diagnosing semicircular canal dehiscence. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016;44:998–1002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krombach, GA, Di, Martino E, Martiny, S, Prescher, A, Haage, P, Buecker, A et al. Dehiscence of the superior and/or posterior semicircular canal: delineation on T2-weighted axial three-dimensional turbo spin-echo images, maximum intensity projections and volume-rendered images. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:111–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von, Elm E, Altman, DG, Egger, M, Pocock, SJ, Gøtzsche, PC, Vandenbroucke, JP;, STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007;370:1453–7Google Scholar
Spear, SA, Jackson, NM, Mehta, R, Morel, CE, Miller, LS, Anderson, D et al. Is MRI equal to CT in the evaluation of thin and dehiscent superior semicircular canals? Otol Neurotol 2016;37:167–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, BK, Carey, JP, Minor, LB. Superior canal dehiscence syndrome: lessons from the first 20 years. Front Neurol 2017;8:177CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tikka, T, Kontorinis, G. Temporal bone anatomy in superior semicircular canal dehiscence: a case control study on bone pneumatization and the level of middle cranial fossa. Otol Neurotol 2020;41:e334–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar