Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:06:19.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2010

A V Kasbekar*
Affiliation:
Departments of Otolaryngology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
D J Scoffings
Affiliation:
Departments of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
B Kenway
Affiliation:
Departments of Otolaryngology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
J Cross
Affiliation:
Departments of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
N Donnelly
Affiliation:
Departments of Otolaryngology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
S W K Lloyd
Affiliation:
Departments of Otolaryngology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
D Moffat
Affiliation:
Departments of Otolaryngology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
P R Axon
Affiliation:
Departments of Otolaryngology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Anand Kasbekar, Flat 7 38 Ye Priory Court Liverpool L25 7AY Fax: 0151 6047103 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objectives:

We evaluated use of the periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction diffusion-weighted imaging sequence, compared with conventional echo planar magnetic resonance imaging, in the detection of middle-ear cholesteatoma.

Material and methods:

Sixteen patients awaiting second-stage combined approach tympanoplasty and three patients awaiting first-stage combined approach tympanoplasty underwent magnetic resonance imaging with both (1) the periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction sequence (i.e. non echo planar imaging) and (2) the array spatial sensitivity encoding technique sequence (i.e. echo planar imaging). Two neuroradiologists independently evaluated the images produced by both sequences. Radiology findings were correlated with surgical findings.

Results and analysis:

Seven cholesteatomas were found at surgery. Neither of the assessed imaging sequences were able to detect cholesteatoma of less than 4 mm. Rates for sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values are presented.

Conclusion:

Decisions on whether or not to operate for cholesteatoma cannot be made based on the two imaging sequences assessed, as evaluated in this study. Other contributing factors are discussed, such as the radiological learning curve and technical limitations of the magnetic resonance imaging equipment.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2010

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

1Lemmerling, MM, De Foer, B, Vandevyver, V, Vercruysse, JP, Verstraete, KL. Imaging of the opacified middle ear. Eur J Radiol 2008;66:363–71Google Scholar
2Vanden, 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 Scholar
3Ayache, 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;115:607–10Google Scholar
4Venail, 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;29:1363–8Google Scholar
5De 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;29:513–17Google Scholar
6De 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;49:841–8Google Scholar
7Lehmann, P, Saliou, G, Brochart, C, Page, C, Deschepper, B, Vallee, JN et al. 3T MR imaging of postoperative recurrent middle ear cholesteatomas: value of periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction diffusion-weighted MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:423–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Forbes, KP, Pipe, JG, Karis, JP, Heiserman, JE. Improved image quality and detection of acute cerebral infarction with PROPELLER diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 2002;225:551–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Schmitz, BL, Aschoff, AJ, Hoffmann, MH, Gron, G. Advantages and pitfalls in 3T MR brain imaging: a pictorial review. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2229–37Google ScholarPubMed
10Pipe, JG, Farthing, VG, Forbes, KP. Multishot diffusion-weighted FSE using PROPELLER MRI. Magn Reson Med 2002;47:4252Google Scholar
11Casselman, JW. Non-EPI scanning in the detection of middle ear cholesteatoma. In: Kasbekar, AV ed. 8th International Cholesteatoma & Ear Surgery Conference. Antalya, Turkey, 2008Google Scholar
12Thiriat, S, Riehm, S, Kremer, S, Martin, E, Veillon, F. Apparent diffusion coefficient values of middle ear cholesteatoma differ from abscess and cholesteatoma admixed infection. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1123–6Google Scholar