The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology · 2021
A Comparison of Near-Infrared Imaging and Computerized Tomography Scan for Detecting Maxillary Sinusitis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Abouzari Mehdi, Sarna Brooke, You Joon, Risbud Adwight, Tsutsumi Kotaro, Goshtasbi Khodayar, Bhandarkar Naveen D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of near-infrared (NIR) imaging as a tool for outpatient clinicians to quickly and accurately assess for maxillary sinusitis and to characterize its accuracy compared to computerized tomography (CT) scan.
METHODS: In a prospective investigational study, NIR and CT images from 65 patients who presented to a tertiary care rhinology clinic were compared to determine the sensitivity and specificity of NIR as an imaging modality.
RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of NIR imaging in distinguishing normal versus maxillary sinus disease was found to be 90% and 84%, normal versus mild maxillary sinus disease to be 76% and 91%, and mild versus severe maxillary sinus disease to be 96% and 81%, respectively. The average pixel intensity was also calculated and compared to the modified Lund-Mackay scores from CT scans to assess the ability of NIR imaging to stratify the severity of maxillary sinus disease. Average pixel intensity over a region of interest was significantly different (P < .001) between normal, mild, and severe disease, as well as when comparing normal versus mild (P < .001, 95% CI 42.22-105.39), normal versus severe (P < .001, 95% CI 119.43-174.14), and mild versus severe (P < .001, 95% CI 41.39-104.56) maxillary sinus disease.
CONCLUSION: Based on this data, NIR shows promise as a tool for identifying patients with potential maxillary sinus disease as well as providing information on severity of disease that may guide administration of appropriate treatments.
METHODS: In a prospective investigational study, NIR and CT images from 65 patients who presented to a tertiary care rhinology clinic were compared to determine the sensitivity and specificity of NIR as an imaging modality.
RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of NIR imaging in distinguishing normal versus maxillary sinus disease was found to be 90% and 84%, normal versus mild maxillary sinus disease to be 76% and 91%, and mild versus severe maxillary sinus disease to be 96% and 81%, respectively. The average pixel intensity was also calculated and compared to the modified Lund-Mackay scores from CT scans to assess the ability of NIR imaging to stratify the severity of maxillary sinus disease. Average pixel intensity over a region of interest was significantly different (P < .001) between normal, mild, and severe disease, as well as when comparing normal versus mild (P < .001, 95% CI 42.22-105.39), normal versus severe (P < .001, 95% CI 119.43-174.14), and mild versus severe (P < .001, 95% CI 41.39-104.56) maxillary sinus disease.
CONCLUSION: Based on this data, NIR shows promise as a tool for identifying patients with potential maxillary sinus disease as well as providing information on severity of disease that may guide administration of appropriate treatments.