Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:38:15.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Radiological observations on the olfactory fossa and ethmoid roof

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2010

S Elwany*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Alexandria Medical School, Egypt
A Medanni
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Alexandria Medical School, Egypt
M Eid
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Alexandria Medical School, Egypt
A Aly
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Alexandria Medical School, Egypt
A El-Daly
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Alexandria Medical School, Egypt
S R Ammar
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Alexandria Medical School, Egypt
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Samy Elwany, 4 Kfr Abdou Street, Roushdey, Alexandria, Egypt. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objective:

To establish normative dimensions for the depth of the olfactory fossa, the length and angulation of the lateral lamella of the cribriform plate, and the height of the ethmoid roof, in adult males and females.

Design:

The study assessed 300 high resolution, multislice computed tomography scans of the paranasal sinuses, which were evaluated using Merge Efilm software (version 2.0.0, build 37).

Results:

According to the original Keros classification, the type II olfactory fossa was the commonest type in men (66.7 per cent), while the type I fossa was commonest in women (53 per cent). A difference of 3 mm or more between the depths of the right and left olfactory fossae was present in 11 per cent of men and 2 per cent of women. The lateral lamella of the cribriform plate was significantly shorter and less oblique in men than in women. The length of the lateral lamella was greater anteriorly than posteriorly in both sexes. There was a statistically significant difference between the angle of the lateral lamellae, comparing right and left sides. The ethmoid roof was lower in women than men.

Conclusion:

The observed differences between men and women and between the right and left sides are of surgical importance, and should alert surgeons to the need for thorough, systematic pre-operative evaluation of computed tomography scans.

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

1Stammberger, HR, Kennedy, DW. Paranasal sinuses: anatomic terminology and nomenclature. The Anatomic Terminology Group. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995;167:716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Ohnishi, T, Tachibana, T, Kaneko, Y, Esaki, S. High-risk areas in endoscopic sinus surgery and prevention of complications. Laryngoscope 1993;103:1181–5Google Scholar
3Ohnishi, T, Yanagisawa, E. Lateral lamella of the cribriform plate – an important high-risk area in endoscopic sinus surgery. Ear Nose Throat J 1995;74:688–90Google Scholar
4Keros, P. On the practical value of differences in the level of the lamina cribrosa of the ethmoid [in German]. Z Laryngol Rhinol Otol 1962;41:809–13Google Scholar
5Basak, S, Karaman, CZ, Akdilli, A, Mutlu, C, Odabasi, O, Erpek, G. Evaluation of some important anatomical variations and dangerous areas of the paranasal sinuses by CT for safer endonasal surgery. Rhinology 1998;36:162–7Google Scholar
6Stankiewicz, JA. Complications of endoscopic intranasal ethmoidectomy. Laryngoscope 1987;97:1270–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Kainz, J, Stammberger, H. The roof of the anterior ethmoid: a locus minoris resistentiae in the skull base [in German]. Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg) 1988;67:142–9Google Scholar
8Arslan, H, Aydinlioglu, A, Bozkurt, M, Egeli, E. Anatomical variations of the paranasal sinuses: CT examination for endoscopic sinus surgery. Auris Nasus Larynx 1999;26:3948CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Zacharek, MA, Han, JK, Allen, R, Weissman, JL, Hwang, PH. Sagittal and coronal dimensions of the ethmoid roof: a radioanatomic study. Am J Rhinol 2005;19:348–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Keast, A, Yelavich, S, Dawes, P, Lyons, B. Anatomical variations of the paranasal sinuses in Polynesian and New Zealand European computerized tomography scans. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139:216–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Basak, S, Akdilli, A, Karaman, CZ. Assessment of some important anatomical variations and dangerous areas of the paranasal sinuses by computed tomography in children. Int J Pediatr Otolaryngol 2005;55:8190Google Scholar
12Jang, YJ, Park, HM, Kin, HG. The radiographic incidence of bony defects in the lateral lamella of the cribriform plate. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1999;24:440–2Google Scholar
13Anderhuber, W, Walch, C, Fock, C. Configuration of ethmoid roof in children 0–14 years of age [in German]. Laryngorhinootologie 2001;80:509–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Souza, SA, Souza, MM, Idagawa, M, Wolosker, A, Ajzen, S. Computed tomography assessment of the ethmoid roof: a relevant region at risk in endoscopic sinus surgery. Radiol Bras 2008;41:143147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Ohnishi, T, Yanagisawa, E. Endoscopic anatomy of the anterior ethmoidal artery. Ear Nose Throat J 1994;73:634–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Grevers, G. Anterior skull base trauma during endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyposis preferred sites for iatrogenic injuries. Rhinology 2001;39:14Google ScholarPubMed
17Dessi, P, Moulin, G, Triglia, JM, Zanaret, M, Cannoni, M. Differences in the height of the right and left ethmoid roofs. A possible risk of ethmoidal surgery. Prospective study of 150 scans. J Laryngol Otol 1994;108:261–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Lobwitz, RA, Terk, A, Jacob, JB, Holiday, RA. Asymmetry of the ethmoid roof, analysis using computed tomography. Laryngoscope 2001;111:2122–4Google Scholar
19Solares, CA, Walter, TL, Batra, P, Citardi, M. Lateral lamella of the cribriform plate: software-enabled computed tomographic analysis and its clinical relevance in skull base surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;134:285–9Google Scholar