A comparable study of the diagnostic performance of orbital ultrasonography and CBCT in patients with suspected orbital floor fractures

被引:14
作者
Johari, Masoumeh [1 ]
Ghavimi, Mohammad Ali [2 ]
Mahmoudian, Hediyeh [1 ]
Javadrashid, Reza [3 ]
Samani, Simin Mirakhor [4 ]
Fouladi, Daniel F. [5 ]
机构
[1] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Fac Dent, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Radiol, Tabriz, Iran
[2] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Fac Dent, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Tabriz, Iran
[3] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Fac Med, Dept Radiol, Tabriz, Iran
[4] Qazvin Univ Med Sci, Dept Pathol, Qazvin, Iran
[5] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Neurosci Res Ctr, Tabriz, Iran
关键词
orbital floor fractures; ultrasonography; cone beam computed tomography; BEAM COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; CURVED ARRAY TRANSDUCER; WALL FRACTURES; ULTRASOUND; TRAUMA; CT; MANAGEMENT; RADIATION; REPAIR; HEAD;
D O I
10.1259/dmfr.20150311
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: To compare the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography and CBCT against CT in detecting orbital floor fractures. Methods: A total of 120 orbits with clinical suspicion of isolated orbital floor fractures underwent multislice CT scanning with coronal reconstruction; orbital ultrasonography using a standard machine equipped with a 7- to 10-MHz linear transducer; and CBCT. Patients with severe head and face injuries were not included. The diagnostic performance of ultrasonography and CBCT was reported assuming conventional CT as the imaging method of choice. Results: According to CT findings, fractures of the floor were present in 39 orbits. The sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value and negative-predictive value of ultrasonography in detecting orbital floor fractures were 87.2%, 100%, 100% and 94.2%, respectively. The corresponding values for CBCT were 97.4%, 97.5%, 95.0%, and 98.8%, respectively. Areas under the receiver operator characteristics curves of orbital floor fracture detection were 0.94 for ultrasonography and 0.98 for CBCT. Conclusions: When conventional CT cannot be performed in patients with clinically suspected orbital floor fracture and no severe or complex head and face injuries, CBCT could be used in detecting fractures as a reliable surrogate. Because of a lower sensitivity of ultrasonography, however, its use is limited in this regard.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]   Radiation Cataractogenesis: A Review of Recent Studies [J].
Ainsbury, E. A. ;
Bouffler, S. D. ;
Doerr, W. ;
Graw, J. ;
Muirhead, C. R. ;
Edwards, A. A. ;
Cooper, J. .
RADIATION RESEARCH, 2009, 172 (01) :1-9
[2]  
Benateau H, 2002, Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac, V103, P233
[3]   Cone beam computed tomography for imaging orbital trauma-image quality and radiation dose compared with conventional multislice computed tomography [J].
Brisco, Jessica ;
Fuller, Karen ;
Lee, Nicholas ;
Andrew, David .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2014, 52 (01) :76-80
[4]   The lens is more sensitive to radiation than we had believed [J].
Brown, NP .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1997, 81 (04) :257-257
[5]  
BUDDEMEYER EU, 1975, RADIOL CLIN N AM, V13, P391
[6]   Clinical recommendations for repair of isolated orbital floor fractures - An evidence-based analysis [J].
Burnstine, MA .
OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2002, 109 (07) :1207-1210
[7]   Comparison of Orbital Fracture Repair Performed Within 14 Days Versus 15 to 29 Days After Trauma [J].
Dal Canto, Albert J. ;
Linberg, John V. .
OPHTHALMIC PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2008, 24 (06) :437-443
[8]   The use of cone beam computed tomography in the management of isolated orbital floor fractures [J].
Drage, Nicholas A. ;
Sivarajasingam, Vaseekaran .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2009, 47 (01) :65-66
[9]   THE ROLE OF ORBITAL ULTRASOUND IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF ORBITAL FRACTURES [J].
FORREST, CR ;
LATA, AC ;
MARCUZZI, DW ;
BAILEY, MH .
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 1993, 92 (01) :28-34
[10]   Blow-out fractures: Patterns of ocular motility and effect of surgical repair [J].
Gosse, Emily M. ;
Ferguson, Andrew W. ;
Lymburn, Elspeth G. ;
Gilmour, Claire ;
MacEwen, Caroline J. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2010, 48 (01) :40-43