Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-8v9h9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T13:30:17.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The value of non echo planar, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of residual or recurrent middle-ear cholesteatoma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2014

S Velthuis ,
K J van Everdingen ,
J J Quak  and
D R Colnot
S Velthuis
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, The Netherlands
K J van Everdingen
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, The Netherlands
J J Quak
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, The Netherlands
D R Colnot*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
Address for correspondence:Dr David R Colnot, Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, PO Box 80250, 3508 TJ Utrecht, The Netherlands Fax: +31 88 250 6738 E-mail: dcolnot@diakhuis.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the value of non echo planar, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for detection of residual and recurrent middle-ear cholesteatoma after combined-approach tympanoplasty.

Method:

The magnetic resonance imaging findings after primary surgery for cholesteatoma were compared with intra-operative findings at ‘second-look’ surgery or with clinical follow-up findings.

Results:

Forty-eight magnetic resonance imaging studies were performed in 38 patients. Second-look surgery was performed 21 times in 18 patients. The remaining patients were followed up at the out-patient clinic. There were no false-positive findings with non echo planar, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging; however, there were four false-negative findings. The mean maximum diameter of recurrent cholesteatoma, as assessed using magnetic resonance imaging, was 11.7 mm (range, 4.4–25.3 mm). The sensitivity of non echo planar, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for detecting cholesteatoma prior to second-look surgery was 0.76, with a specificity of 1.00. When clinical follow up of the non-operated ears was included in the analysis, sensitivity was 0.81 and specificity was 1.00.

Conclusion:

Recurrent cholesteatoma can be accurately detected using non echo planar, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Our study, however, also showed some false-negative results. Therefore, strict out-patient follow up is mandatory for those considering using this technique instead of standard second-look surgery.

Keywords

CholesteatomaMagnetic Resonance ImagingDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingEcho-Planar ImagingFollow-Up Studies

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 128 , Issue 7 , July 2014 , pp. 599 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Tierney, PA, Pracy, P, Blaney, SP, Bowdler, DA. An assessment of the value of the preoperative computed tomography scans prior to otoendoscopic ‘second look’ in intact canal wall mastoid surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 1999;24:274–6Google Scholar
2Martin, N, Sterkers, O, Nahum, H. Chronic inflammatory disease of the middle ear cavities: Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1990;176:399–405CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Vercruysse, JP, De Foer, B, Pouillon, M, Somers, T, Casselman, J, Offeciers, E. The value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis of primary acquired and residual cholesteatoma: a surgical verified study of 100 patients. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1461–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Jindal, M, Riskalla, A, Jiang, D, Connor, S, O'Connor, AF. A systematic review of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of postoperative cholesteatoma. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:1243–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Fitzek, C, Mewes, T, Fitzek, S, Mentzel, HJ, Hunsche, S, Stoeter, P. Diffusion-weighted MRI of cholesteatomas of the petrous bone. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002;15:636–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Maheshwari, S, Mukherji, SK. Diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating recurrent cholesteatoma from granulation tissue after mastoidectomy: case report. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:847–9Google Scholar
7Evlice, A, Tarkan, O, Kiroglu, M, Bicakci, K, Ozdemir, S, Tuncer, U et al. Detection of recurrent and primary acquired cholesteatoma with echo-planar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:670–6Google Scholar
8De Foer, B, Vercruysse, JP, Bernaerts, A, Maes, J, Deckers, F, Michiels, J et al. The value of single-shot turbo spin-echo diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the detection of middle ear cholesteatoma. Neuroradiology 2007;49:841–8Google Scholar
9De Foer, B, Vercruysse, JP, Pilet, B, Michiels, J, Vertriest, R, Pouillon, M et al. Single-shot, turbo spin-echo, diffusion-weighted imaging versus spin-echo-planar, diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of acquired middle ear cholesteatoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:1480–2Google ScholarPubMed
10Dubrulle, F, Souillard, R, Chechin, D, Vaneecloo, FM, Desaulty, A, Vincent, C. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging sequence in the detection of postoperative recurrent cholesteatoma. Radiology 2006;238:604–10Google Scholar
11Dremmen, MH, Hofman, PA, Hof, JR, Stokroos, RJ, Postma, AA. The diagnostic accuracy of non-echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of residual and/or recurrent cholesteatoma of the temporal bone. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:439–44Google Scholar
12Dhepnorrarat, RC, Wood, B, Rajan, GP. Postoperative non-echo-planar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging changes after cholesteatoma surgery: implications for cholesteatoma screening. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:54–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Jeunen, G, Desloovere, C, Hermans, R, Vandecaveye, V. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of residual or recurrent acquired cholesteatoma after canal wall-up tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:16–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Kasbekar, AV, Scoffings, DJ, Kenway, B, Cross, J, Donnelly, N, Lloyd, SW et al. Non echo planar, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction sequence) compared with echo planar imaging for the detection of middle-ear cholesteatoma. J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:376–80Google Scholar
15Aarts, MC, Rovers, MM, van der Veen, EL, Schilder, AG, van der Heijden, GJ, Grolman, W. The diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in detecting a residual cholesteatoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;143:12–16Google Scholar