The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology · 2008
Comparative ultrasonographic, magnetic resonance sialographic, and videoendoscopic assessment of salivary duct disorders.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Capaccio Pasquale, Cuccarini Valeria, Ottaviani Francesco, Minorati Davide, Sambataro Giuseppe, Cornalba Paolo, Pignataro Lorenzo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Salivary duct disorders are the second most common cause of obstruction after calculi. Magnetic resonance sialography has been recently proposed as a means of diagnosing a heterogeneous group of salivary disorders, and so we compared it with sialoendoscopy in evaluating stenoses and sialectasia in 24 patients with obstructive symptoms and ultrasonographic results negative for calculi or masses.
METHODS: All of the patients (19 of whom had recurrent unilateral or bilateral swollen parotid glands and 5 of whom also had recurrent swollen submandibular glands) underwent dynamic color Doppler ultrasonography and dynamic magnetic resonance sialography with lemon juice stimulation of saliva; 18 patients also underwent diagnostic sialoendoscopy.
RESULTS: Ultrasonography and color Doppler ultrasonography showed duct dilatation in all patients (bilateral in 5 with parotid stenosis). Magnetic resonance sialography confirmed duct dilatation and stenosis in all of the patients, and revealed the simultaneous presence of calculi in 4 cases. A parotid sialocele was found in 4 cases. The magnetic resonance sialographic findings were confirmed in the patients who underwent sialoendoscopy. No side effects were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance sialography following prediagnostic ultrasonography allows an adequate diagnosis of salivary duct disorders such as stenosis and sialectasia, as confirmed by objective sialoendoscopic assessment. Magnetic resonance sialography also makes it possible to visualize the salivary duct system up to its tertiary branches and, in this regard, may be considered a valid, noninvasive method for the evaluation of salivary duct disorders.
METHODS: All of the patients (19 of whom had recurrent unilateral or bilateral swollen parotid glands and 5 of whom also had recurrent swollen submandibular glands) underwent dynamic color Doppler ultrasonography and dynamic magnetic resonance sialography with lemon juice stimulation of saliva; 18 patients also underwent diagnostic sialoendoscopy.
RESULTS: Ultrasonography and color Doppler ultrasonography showed duct dilatation in all patients (bilateral in 5 with parotid stenosis). Magnetic resonance sialography confirmed duct dilatation and stenosis in all of the patients, and revealed the simultaneous presence of calculi in 4 cases. A parotid sialocele was found in 4 cases. The magnetic resonance sialographic findings were confirmed in the patients who underwent sialoendoscopy. No side effects were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance sialography following prediagnostic ultrasonography allows an adequate diagnosis of salivary duct disorders such as stenosis and sialectasia, as confirmed by objective sialoendoscopic assessment. Magnetic resonance sialography also makes it possible to visualize the salivary duct system up to its tertiary branches and, in this regard, may be considered a valid, noninvasive method for the evaluation of salivary duct disorders.