Carpenter David J, Tucci Debara L, Kaylie David M, Frank-Ito Dennis O
Division of Head and Neck Surgery & Communication Sciences, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Computational Biology & Bioinformatics PhD Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
J Otol. 2017 Jun;12(2):74-79. doi: 10.1016/j.joto.2017.04.001. Epub 2017 May 5.
Middle ear volume (MEV) is a clinically relevant parameter across middle ear diseases. MEV values between these techniques have never before been tested for agreement in ears with perforated tympanic membranes (TMs).
Middle ears were identified from 36 patients ranging 18-89 years of age with TM perforations who underwent tympanometry and temporal bone computed tomography (CT) between 2005 and 2015. MEVs calculated by both tympanometry and three-dimensional volume reconstruction (3DVR) were analyzed for agreement using Bland Altman plots. The differences between tympanometric and 3DVR MEV values for each given middle ear were characterized across MEV quartiles (1 = smallest; 4 = largest) and across increasing states of middle ear disease using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon testing with Bonferroni correction.
Bland Altman plots demonstrated significant disagreement between MEV measurement techniques. Differences between tympanometric (T) and 3DVR MEV values were significantly greater with increasing average (i.e. (T+3DVR)/2)) MEV per linear regression (p < 0.0001). Significance was demonstrated between fourth and first average MEV quartiles (p = 0.0024), fourth and second quartiles (p = 0.0024), third and first quartiles (p = 0.0048), and third and second quartiles (p = 0.048). Absolute MEV difference was not significantly different across varying states of middle ear disease (p = 0.44).
Statistically and clinically significant disagreement was demonstrated between tympanometric and 3DVR MEV values. Studies that vary in MEV estimation techniques may be expected to demonstrate significantly different results. These preliminary results suggest that clinicians should endeavor to seek further confirmation when interpreting high tympanometric MEV values.
中耳容积(MEV)是中耳疾病中的一个临床相关参数。此前从未对这些技术所测的MEV值在鼓膜穿孔(TM)耳中的一致性进行过测试。
选取2005年至2015年间36例年龄在18至89岁之间、患有TM穿孔且接受了鼓室导抗图检查和颞骨计算机断层扫描(CT)的患者的中耳。使用布兰德-奥特曼图分析通过鼓室导抗图和三维容积重建(3DVR)计算出的MEV值的一致性。使用Kruskal-Wallis检验和经Bonferroni校正的Wilcoxon检验,对每个给定中耳的鼓室导抗图和3DVR的MEV值差异,按MEV四分位数(1 = 最小;4 = 最大)以及中耳疾病进展状态进行特征分析。
布兰德-奥特曼图显示MEV测量技术之间存在显著差异。根据线性回归,随着平均(即(鼓室导抗图 + 3DVR)/2)MEV增加,鼓室导抗图(T)和3DVR的MEV值差异显著增大(p < 0.0001)。第四和第一平均MEV四分位数之间(p = 0.0024)、第四和第二四分位数之间(p = 0.0024)、第三和第一四分位数之间(p = 0.0048)以及第三和第二四分位数之间(p = 0.048)均显示出显著性。在不同的中耳疾病状态下,MEV绝对差异无显著差异(p = 0.44)。
鼓室导抗图和3DVR的MEV值之间存在统计学和临床意义上的显著差异。预计MEV估计技术不同的研究可能会得出显著不同的结果。这些初步结果表明,临床医生在解释鼓室导抗图高MEV值时应努力寻求进一步的证实。