| Literature DB >> 26985244 |
Leena Robinson Vimala1, Anitha Jasper1, Aparna Irodi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Localization of a cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] fistula is a diagnostic challenge. The choice of an optimal imaging technique is necessary to locate the site of CSF leak which is required for surgical/endoscopic repair of the CSF fistula. MATERIAL/Entities:
Keywords: Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Multidetector Computed Tomography
Year: 2016 PMID: 26985244 PMCID: PMC4774580 DOI: 10.12659/PJR.895698
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pol J Radiol ISSN: 1733-134X
Distribution of patients in relation to the treatment options.
| Site of fistula | No: of defects |
|---|---|
| Cribriform plate | 16 |
| Lateral lamella | 2 |
| Junction of fovea and cribriform plate | 1 |
| Posterior wall of frontal sinus | 1 |
| Lateral recess of sphenoid | 1 |
Distribution of CSF fistulas based on the site of involvement as per endoscopic findings.
| MR cisternography + HRCT | 16 | 9 | 25 |
| HRCT alone | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| MR cisternography | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| CT cisternography + MR cisternography + HRCT | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Figure 1(A, B) Defect in the right cribriform plate with CSF leak.
Figure 2CT cisternography shows contrast leak through the right cribriform plate [black curved arrow].
Figure 3(A, B) Coronal and sagittal MR cisternogram shows CSF leak through the posterior wall of the right frontal sinus [white arrow]
Figure 4(A) HRCT showing the bony defect at the right lateral recess of the sphenoid sinus [black arrow]. (B, C) MR cisternogram depicting the CSF leak through the right lateral recess of the sphenoid sinus.
Figure 5Defect in the right cribriform plate [white curved arrow] with a meningocele [black arrow] in the right nasal cavity.
Distribution of CSF fistulas based on etiology.
| Etiology | No: of |
|---|---|
| CSF fistulas | 16 |
| Spontaneous | 15 |
| Traumatic | 3 |
| Post FESS related | 2 |
| Post meningitis sequelae | 2 |
Review of previous literature on non-invasive evaluation of CSF rhinorrhoea
| Previously published data with the present study | Total patients/ No. of years of study | Non-enhanced MR cisterno-graphy | Gadolinium-enhanced MR cisternography | HRCT | MR [non-enhanced] cisternography + HRCT | CT cisterno- graphy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shetty et al. | 35 [3 years] | Sensitivity | 87 | 92 | 95 | ||
| Specificity | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||||
| Accuracy | 93 | 93 | 96 | ||||
| Mosafa et al. | 20 | Sensitivity | 88.88 | 88.25 | 89.74 | ||
| Accuracy | 90 | 89.5 | 89.47 | 83.3 | |||
| Ragheb et al. | 24 | Sensitivity | 95.6 | 65.2 | |||
| Specificity | 100 | 33 | |||||
| Accuracy | 95.8 | 61.5 | |||||
| Algin et al. | 17 (5 years) | Sensitivity | 76 | 100 | 88 | ||
| Schuknecht et al. | 27 | ||||||
| Present study | 25 – MR cisternography + HRCT | Sensitivity | 93 | ||||
| Specificity | 100 | ||||||
| Positive predictive vale | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |||
| Negative predictive value | 50 |