MedElevator
Войти в исследования Radiologia · 2020
Inner ear MRI: is it always useful to manage intravenous contrast?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Sepúlveda Villegas C A, Santos Armentia E, Utrera Pérez E, Jurado Basildo C, Novoa Ferro M, Del Campo Estepar S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the added value of administering intravenous contrast (IVC) routinely to the MRI of patients with audiovestibular symptoms in the assessment of a neuroradiologist and a resident.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study including patients who had an inner ear MRI for two months. Two radiologists reviewed independently and blinded the images. A first assessment was made analyzing just the sequences acquired without contrast and then a second evaluation of all the sequences, including post-contrast T1 sequences. The interobserver correlation and the correlation between MRI findings and the reason for requesting the study were calculated.
RESULTS: 40 patients were included. The range age was 36-80 years. The most frequent reason for request the MRI was hearing loss (52.5%). Neuroradiologist without IVC found 82.5% of extraotic pathology and 17.5% of otic pathology, highlighting the neurinoma of the VIII pair (7.5%); ossifying labyrinthitis, retrofenestrated otosclerosis and cholesteatoma. After IVC administration, findings were similar. The resident identified otic pathology in 5% in baseline sequences and 20% using CIV. The interobserver correlation using IVC was excellent (0.97), but weak without IVC (0.52). There was a correlation between the reasons for request the MRI and the findings in the ears, both in protocols without IVC (p = 0.004) and in protocols with IVC (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: Inner ear MRI without contrast gives relevant information to assess audiovestibular symptoms. The use of IVC increases the degree of confidence in a novel radiologist, while in the expert its use is less relevant. A protocol should be proposed in which gadolinium is used in selected patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study including patients who had an inner ear MRI for two months. Two radiologists reviewed independently and blinded the images. A first assessment was made analyzing just the sequences acquired without contrast and then a second evaluation of all the sequences, including post-contrast T1 sequences. The interobserver correlation and the correlation between MRI findings and the reason for requesting the study were calculated.
RESULTS: 40 patients were included. The range age was 36-80 years. The most frequent reason for request the MRI was hearing loss (52.5%). Neuroradiologist without IVC found 82.5% of extraotic pathology and 17.5% of otic pathology, highlighting the neurinoma of the VIII pair (7.5%); ossifying labyrinthitis, retrofenestrated otosclerosis and cholesteatoma. After IVC administration, findings were similar. The resident identified otic pathology in 5% in baseline sequences and 20% using CIV. The interobserver correlation using IVC was excellent (0.97), but weak without IVC (0.52). There was a correlation between the reasons for request the MRI and the findings in the ears, both in protocols without IVC (p = 0.004) and in protocols with IVC (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: Inner ear MRI without contrast gives relevant information to assess audiovestibular symptoms. The use of IVC increases the degree of confidence in a novel radiologist, while in the expert its use is less relevant. A protocol should be proposed in which gadolinium is used in selected patients.