R L Clarke1, B Isaacson2, J W Kutz2, Y Xi1, T N Booth3,2. 1. From the Department of Radiology (R.L.C., Y.X., T.N.B.), Children's Health of Texas/University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 2. Department of Otolaryngology (B.I., J.W.K., T.N.B.), Children's Health of Texas/University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 3. From the Department of Radiology (R.L.C., Y.X., T.N.B.), Children's Health of Texas/University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas tim.booth@childrens.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An enlarged vestibular aqueduct is the most commonly reported imaging abnormality in children with sensorineural hearing loss. MR imaging is often used to evaluate pediatric sensorineural hearing loss; however, there are no well-established size criteria on MR imaging to diagnose an enlarged endolymphatic duct. The first purpose of the study was to determine a range of normal endolymphatic duct sizes on MR imaging and compare it with that in high-resolution CT. The second purpose was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging in diagnosing an enlarged endolymphatic duct in patients with an enlarged vestibular aqueduct on CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Endolymphatic duct midaperture measurements were analyzed in 52 patients with no history of sensorineural hearing loss. Comparison of CT and MR imaging was made in a second cohort of 41 patients with a normal midaperture width on CT. The sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging were then evaluated in a third cohort of 24 patients with a documented enlarged vestibular aqueduct on CT. RESULTS: In 94 ears, normal endolymphatic duct midaperture measurements ranged from 0 to 0.9 mm on MR imaging. A significant correlation (P <.001) and moderate agreement were found between CT and MR imaging in 81 ears with a normal vestibular aqueduct on CT. Twenty-four patients had bilateral (n = 14) or unilateral (n = 10) enlarged vestibular aqueducts on CT, and the sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging were 97% and 100%, respectively, for a diagnosis of an enlarged endolymphatic duct. CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging measurements of the normal endolymphatic duct are similar to those established for CT. MR imaging is a useful tool for the diagnosis of enlarged vestibular aqueduct.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An enlarged vestibular aqueduct is the most commonly reported imaging abnormality in children with sensorineural hearing loss. MR imaging is often used to evaluate pediatric sensorineural hearing loss; however, there are no well-established size criteria on MR imaging to diagnose an enlarged endolymphatic duct. The first purpose of the study was to determine a range of normal endolymphatic duct sizes on MR imaging and compare it with that in high-resolution CT. The second purpose was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging in diagnosing an enlarged endolymphatic duct in patients with an enlarged vestibular aqueduct on CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Endolymphatic duct midaperture measurements were analyzed in 52 patients with no history of sensorineural hearing loss. Comparison of CT and MR imaging was made in a second cohort of 41 patients with a normal midaperture width on CT. The sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging were then evaluated in a third cohort of 24 patients with a documented enlarged vestibular aqueduct on CT. RESULTS: In 94 ears, normal endolymphatic duct midaperture measurements ranged from 0 to 0.9 mm on MR imaging. A significant correlation (P <.001) and moderate agreement were found between CT and MR imaging in 81 ears with a normal vestibular aqueduct on CT. Twenty-four patients had bilateral (n = 14) or unilateral (n = 10) enlarged vestibular aqueducts on CT, and the sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging were 97% and 100%, respectively, for a diagnosis of an enlarged endolymphatic duct. CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging measurements of the normal endolymphatic duct are similar to those established for CT. MR imaging is a useful tool for the diagnosis of enlarged vestibular aqueduct.
Authors: Christine M Glastonbury; H Christian Davidson; H Ric Harnsberger; John Butler; Thomas R Kertesz; Clough Shelton Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Nicholas L Deep; Matthew L Carlson; Steven M Weindling; David M Barrs; Colin L W Driscoll; Christine M Lohse; John I Lane; Joseph M Hoxworth Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: H C Davidson; H R Harnsberger; M M Lemmerling; A A Mancuso; D K White; K A Tong; R T Dahlen; C Shelton Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Bo Gyung Kim; Hyo Jin Chung; Jeong Jin Park; Sera Park; Sung Huhn Kim; Jae Young Choi Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 6.223