Routine multi detector computed tomography evaluation of tracheal impairment compared to laryngo-tracheal endoscopy in children with vascular ring.
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare free-breathing routine multi detector computed tomography (MDCT) and laryngo-tracheal (LT) flexible endoscopy in the evaluation of tracheal impairment in children with vascular ring (VR).
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
We performed a retrospective and monocentric study of all patients with VR from 1997 to 2014. Clinical data included: initial symptoms, type of surgery and clinical outcome. MDCT were blindly reviewed by two radiologists in consensus, independently of LT endoscopy results. Radiologic and endoscopic results were reviewed according to four criteria: percentage of tracheal narrowing, distance of the compression from carina, presence of bronchial compression and signs of tracheomalacia (TM). Concordance was evaluated for each criterion with a Spearman coefficient.
RESULTS
From 1997 to 2016, 21 patients with a vascular ring were operated on, among which 57% by thoracoscopy: double aortic arch (n = 14), Neuhauser anomaly (n = 4) and Right aorta + aberrant right subclavian artery (n = 3). 90% of them presented with respiratory symptoms among which 43% of stridor. Chest X-ray was suggestive of VR in 87% of the cases. MDCT images and LT endoscopy results were available and analyzed for nine patients. Concordance (Spearman correlation coefficient) was excellent for percentage and level of tracheal narrowing (1) and good for TM (0.79).
CONCLUSION
Free breathing routine MDCT is a reliable exam compared to LT endoscopy in the evaluation of tracheal impairment in children with VR. In case of respiratory symptoms (except stridor) and suggestive chest X-ray of VR, endoscopy could be avoided and routine MDCT alone performed.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.