PURPOSE: To compare in a single-blind study the reliability of quantitative measurements and subjective evaluations of contrast enhancement of the facial nerve in patients with idiopathic facial paralysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Magnetic resonance images with a 0.7 mm slice thickness (surface coil) were obtained in patients with idiopathic facial paralysis before and after administration of Gd-DTPA, 0.1 mmol/kg. The five intratemporal segments of the facial nerve were quantitatively measured and subjectively assessed by five radiologists as to the degree of enhancement. The results were compared as to the reliability of both methods. RESULTS: Using the quantitative measuring method, 175 measurements were calculated from a total of 350 regions of interest. At all 35 measured sites, the five quantitative measurements produced identical results. In contrast, the subjective assessment of the five radiologists arrived at a majority consensus in only 16 sites. A complete agreement was not reached for any measured site. CONCLUSION: The measured quantitative increase in signal intensity after administration of contrast medium is more reliable than subjective assessment. The quantitative method enables reproducible signal intensity measurements even for different window settings and can be easily and swiftly performed at the workstation.
PURPOSE: To compare in a single-blind study the reliability of quantitative measurements and subjective evaluations of contrast enhancement of the facial nerve in patients with idiopathic facial paralysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Magnetic resonance images with a 0.7 mm slice thickness (surface coil) were obtained in patients with idiopathic facial paralysis before and after administration of Gd-DTPA, 0.1 mmol/kg. The five intratemporal segments of the facial nerve were quantitatively measured and subjectively assessed by five radiologists as to the degree of enhancement. The results were compared as to the reliability of both methods. RESULTS: Using the quantitative measuring method, 175 measurements were calculated from a total of 350 regions of interest. At all 35 measured sites, the five quantitative measurements produced identical results. In contrast, the subjective assessment of the five radiologists arrived at a majority consensus in only 16 sites. A complete agreement was not reached for any measured site. CONCLUSION: The measured quantitative increase in signal intensity after administration of contrast medium is more reliable than subjective assessment. The quantitative method enables reproducible signal intensity measurements even for different window settings and can be easily and swiftly performed at the workstation.