| Literature DB >> 20848120 |
Kamal Morshed1, Agnieszka Trojanowska, Marcin Szymański, Piotr Trojanowski, Anna Szymańska, Agata Smoleń, Andrzej Drop.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare various helical CT display modes [virtual endoscopy (VE)] and multiplanar reformations (MPR), conventional flexible tracheobronchoscopy (FT) and intra-operative (IO) findings in patients with tracheal stenosis and to analyze the advantage of MPR and VE in diagnosis and treatment planning and in postoperative follow-up. Thirty-seven patients with tracheal stenosis underwent standard neck and chest CT followed by MPR and VE. Results were correlated with the results of FT and IO findings. Thirty-three of the 37 stenoses were correctly graded and measured adequately using VE. Complete correlation among CT, fiberoptic tracheoscopy, and surgery of stenosis grading, stenosis length and length of planned resection segment of the trachea was noted between 33 of 37 patients with tracheal stenosis. Correlation between VE and IO was noted in 35 of 37 patients and between FT and VE was noted in 33 of 37 patients with tracheal stenosis. The sensitivity of VE was 94-97%, specificity was 100% with comparison to IO findings. The sensitivity and accuracy of MPR was 86-89% and specificity was 100% with comparison to FT findings. The results of the study indicate that VE is an excellent, consistent, and objective technique. VE with MPR is very useful in diagnostic evaluation and treatment planning in patients with tracheal stenosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20848120 PMCID: PMC3052474 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-010-1380-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol ISSN: 0937-4477 Impact factor: 2.503
Fig. 2Virtual endoscopy showing concentric narrowing of the airway. a View of the proximal part of stenosis, b view of the distal part of stenosis
Fig. 1Axial image with measurement of the width (diameter) of trachea
Fig. 3Coronal image with measurements of stenosis. A length from the vocal cord, B length of planned segmental resection of trachea, C diameter of tracheal stenosis, D diameter of normal trachea
Fig. 43D shaded surface display
Fig. 5Flexible tracheoscopy of tracheal stenosis
Fig. 6Image of resected segment of trachea
Grading of tracheal stenosis and correlation of postoperative grading with FT, VE, axial, coronal and sagittal reformatted CT of 37 patients with tracheal stenosis
| Estimation of stenosis grading ( | FT (%) | VE (%) | Axial CT (%) | Coronal reformatted CT (%) | Sagittal reformatted CT (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correctly graded stenosis | 35/37 (94.6) | 36/37 (97.3) | 35/37 (94.6) | 35/37 (94.6) | 35/37 (94.6) |
Analysis of the length of planned resection segment of trachea and correlation of postoperative findings with FT, coronal and sagittal reformatted CT of 37 patients with tracheal stenosis
| Estimation of length of planned resection segment ( | FT (%) | Coronal reformatted CT (%) | Sagittal reformatted CT (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length of planned resection segment | 32/37 (86.5) | 35/37 (94.6) | 35/37 (94.6) |
Analysis and correlation between FT and VE, axial CT, coronal and sagittal reformatted CT of 37 patients with tracheal stenosis
| Examined features | TP | TN | FP | FN | SENS (%) | SPEC (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | ACC (%) | Statistical significance (McNemara test) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FT/VE | ||||||||||
| Stenosis grading | 33 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 94 | 100 | 100 | 50 | 95 |
|
| Stenosis length | 33 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 97 | 100 | 100 | 75 | 97 |
|
| Length from vocal cord | 32 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 97 | 25 | 91 | 50 | 89 |
|
| Length of planned resection segment of the trachea | 32 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 94 | 0 | 91 | 0 | 86 |
|
| FT | ||||||||||
| Axial CT | 31 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 89 | 100 | 100 | 33 | 89 |
|
| Coronal reformatted CT | 30 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 86 | 50 | 97 | 17 | 84 |
|
| Sagittal reformatted CT | 30 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 86 | 100 | 100 | 29 | 86 |
|
Examined patients (N = 37)
FT flexible tracheobronchoscopy, VE virtual endotracheoscopy, TP true positive, TN true negative, FP false positive, FN false negative, SENS sensitivity, SPEC specificity, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, ACC accuracy