| Literature DB >> 23663414 |
Mohammed A Q Al-Saleh1, Jacob L Jaremko, Humam Saltaji, John Wolfaardt, Paul W Major.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy to the head and neck regions can result in serious consequences to the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and chewing muscles. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrates soft-tissue alterations after radiotherapy, such as morphology and signal intensity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23663414 PMCID: PMC3651244 DOI: 10.1186/1916-0216-42-26
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ISSN: 1916-0208
Figure 1Flow diagram of the selection process.
Sample demographics, study design, tumor type, treatment type, method and timing of data collection of the selected papers
| Case report | Retrospective study | Case Report | Retrospective study (1998–2005) | |
| • Clinical and MRI assessment. | • Review of clinical and MRI records. | • Clinical and MRI assessment. | • Review of clinical and MRI records. | |
| • N = 1 | • N = 5 (only 3 had MRI) | • N = 1 | • N = 35 | |
| • Sex: F | • Sex: 4 M, 1 F. | • Sex: M | • Sex: 30 M, 5 F. | |
| • Age: 9 years. | • Age: mean 54 years, range 17 to 74. | • Age: 57 years. | • Age: mean 51 years, range 35 to 75. | |
| • Rhabdomyosarcoma | • Squamous cell carcinoma. | • Squamous cell carcinoma. | • Nasopharyngeal carcinoma | |
| | • Adenocarcinoma. | | | |
| | • Mucoepidermoid and oncocytic carcinomas of parotid. | | | |
| • Radiotherapy | • Radiotherapy | • Radiotherapy | • Radiotherapy | |
| • Chemotherapy | | • Chemotherapy | | |
| Right auricular region | Soft palate | Nasopharynx | Nasopharynx | |
| | Nasopharynx | | | |
| | Submandibular and parotid glands | | | |
| • 18 months | • Mean 4.4 years (range 1 to 8 years) | • 8 months | • Mean 6.7 years (range 1.3 to 15.2 years) | |
| • 50 Gy | • 60 to 69 Gy | • 75.8 Gy | • Not reported | |
| ○ (T1-W): | ○ (T1-W, T2-W, contrast-enhanced): | ○ (T1-W, T2-W, contrast-enhanced): | ○ (T1-W, T2-W, contrast-enhanced): | |
| | | | ||
| • Ipsilateral masseter muscle atrophy. | • Bone marrow of involved portion of mandible showed homogenous low signal intensity in T1-W, high signal intensity in T2-W, and diffuse intense enhancement with contrast medium. | • Tumor mass in left nasal cavity. | • 19 patients had abnormal increase in signal intensity of masseter, temporalis, lateral & medial pterygoid muscles | |
| • Ipsilateral condylar head flattening. | • All patients had cortical disruption of the mandible. | • Ipsilateral size reduction in the masseter, lateral & medial pterygoid muscles. | .• 16 patients had only mild signal intensity changes in masticatory muscles. However, they had different abnormalities such as (nerve injury, TMJ deformity, osteoradionecrosis, fibrosis & inflammation). | |
| • Contralateral condylar head osteophyte. | • 3 patients had ipsilateral increase of signal intensity of masseter, lateral and medial pterygoid muscles adjacent to the osseous abnormalities. | • T1-W revealed increase in signal intensity of the lateral pterygoid muscle due to fatty infiltration. | | |
| • Bilateral normal TMJ articular disc morphology. | • 2 patients had prominent mass-like thickening of masseter, lateral and medial pterygoid muscles. | • T2-W revealed increase of signal intensity of the masseter, lateral & medial pterygoid, temporalis and mylohyoid muscles. | | |
| • Bilateral normal signal intensity of the TMJ articular surfaces & mandibular ramus. | | • Contrast enhanced image showed tumor invasion along the mandibular division of trigeminal nerve. | | |
| | | | ||
| | | • Remarkable increase in the (T2-W) signal intensity of the lateral pterygoid muscle. | | |
| ----------- | ------------ | |||
| • Normal TMJ articular disc morphology. | • All patients had ipsilateral abnormal enhancement of the masseter, lateral and medial pterygoid muscles adjacent to the osseous abnormalities. | | | |
| • Root development stopped at ipsilateral molars and premolars. | • 4 patients had prominent mass-like thickening of masseter, lateral and medial pterygoid muscles. | | | |
| • Ipsilateral shorter ramus and larger gonial angle. | • All patients had mandibular osseous abnormality, disorganization & loss of trabeculation of the spongiosa of the mandible. | | | |
| | • 1 patient suffered ipsilateral mandibular fistula. | | | |
| | • 1 patient suffered ipsilateral mandibular pathologic fracture. | | | |
| • Tenderness of ipsilateral TMJ capsule, masseter, lateral & medial pterygoid and posterior digastric muscles. | • All patient suffered ipsilateral facial pain and swilling. | ----------- | • Restricted vertical mouth opening range (3–25 mm). | |
| • Restricted vertical mouth opening (23mm). | • 1 patient suffered ipsilateral numbness, tingling & dysesthesia a long the inferior alveolar nerve. | | | |
| • Normal lateral mouth movement. | • 3 patients suffered trismus. | | | |
| • Higher EMG activity of ipsilateral masseter & temporalis muscles in all movements. | • All patients suffered osteoradionecrosis (4 ipsilateral &1 contralateral). | | | |
| • Normal salivary flow. | • 1 patient suffered ipsilateral mandibular fistula. | | | |
| • Ipsilateral superficial dental decay, heavy plaque accumulation and gingivitis. | • 1 patient suffered ipsilateral mandibular pathologic fracture. |
Quality and risk of bias assessment tool
| A. Selection bias | 1. | Randomized sample | N/A | No | N/A | No |
| 2. | Sample size ≥ 30 | N/A | No | N/A | Yes | |
| 3. | Adequate test group: | N/A | Yes | N/A | Yes | |
| • Were cases selected appropriately (e.g., appropriate diagnostic criteria or definitions) | ||||||
| 4. | Adequate control (before and after) | No | No | Yes | No | |
| • Inadequate: contralateral side of same patient | ||||||
| 5. | Inclusion/exclusion criteria for recruitment | N/A | No | N/A | Yes | |
| B. Detection or measurement bias | 6. | Adequate follow-up | Yes | No | No | No |
| • Inadequate: or follow-up period was not the same between patients, or less than 9 months post-treatment. | ||||||
| 7. | Was the intervention assessed using a reliable measure? i.e. pre-treatment muscular tissue assessment | No | No | Yes | Yes | |
| • Example: with MRI, CT, or others. | ||||||
| 8. | Were the outcomes assessed using a reliable measure? i.e. MRI muscle tissue assessment measurements | No | No | No | No | |
| • Example: Inter or intra-examiner agreement reported | ||||||
| 9. | Outcome assessors blinded to intervention. | No | No | No | No | |
| 10. | Reported and statistically controlled for confounding factors. | N/A | No | N/A | No | |
| C. Analysis or interpretation bias | 11. | Adequate statistical tests used. | N/A | No | N/A | Yes |
| Inadequate: e.g. univariate analysis for multivariate outcomes | ||||||
| 12. | Adequate and complete reporting of results | N/A | No | N/A | No | |
| Inadequate: e.g. lack of SD or 95% CI, reporting significance based on | ||||||
| D. Performance bias | 13. | Did researchers rule out any impact from a concurrent intervention or an unintended exposure that might bias results? | N/A | Yes | N/A | Yes |
| Total score | 1/5 | 2/13 | 2/5 | 6/13 | ||