Suppr超能文献

上半规管裂和其他裂孔风险:回顾性 CT 队列研究。

Superior Canal Dehiscence and the Risk of Additional Dehiscences: A Retrospective CT Cohort Study.

机构信息

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

Department of Radiology, Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC.

出版信息

Otol Neurotol. 2024 Aug 1;45(7):e525-e531. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000004228.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Determine if superior canal dehiscence (SCD) found on flat-panel CT increases the risk for other defects in the otic capsule.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

One hundred ears (50 with SCD and 50 matched controls without SCD).

INTERVENTIONS

Flat-panel CT imaging.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Prevalence of other dehiscences in SCD ears, (2) dehiscences in controls, and (3) otic capsule thickness in other reported dehiscence locations (cochlea-carotid, lateral semicircular canal [SCC] and mastoid, facial nerve-lateral SCC, vestibular aqueduct, posterior SCC-jugular bulb, posterior SCC-posterior fossa). Between-group comparisons were considered significant at p < 0.007 after applying the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

Not including the SCD, there was a mean of 0.04 additional dehiscences in the SCD group (n = 2/50, 4%) and 0.04 non-SCD dehiscences in the controls (n = 2/50, 4%, p > 0.007). In the SCD group, there was one dehiscence between the cochlea and carotid artery and one between the posterior SCC and posterior fossa. The control group had one enlarged vestibular aqueduct and one dehiscence between the facial nerve and lateral SCC. As a group, SCD ears had wider vestibular aqueducts (0.68 ± 0.20 vs 0.51 ± 0.30 mm, p < 0.007) and thinner bone between the posterior SCC and posterior fossa (3.12 ± 1.43 vs 4.34 ± 1.67 mm, p < 0.007). The bone between the facial nerve and lateral SCC was thicker in SCD ears (0.77 ± 0.23 vs 0.55 ± 0.27 mm, p < 0.007) and no different for cochlea-carotid, and lateral SCC and mastoid (p > 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

SCD does not increase the likelihood of a second dehiscence in the same otic capsule. SCD patients may have congenitally thinner otic capsule bones compared to controls, particularly near the posterior SCC, where the vestibular aqueduct may be enlarged.

摘要

目的

确定在平板 CT 上发现的上半规管裂是否会增加耳壳其他缺陷的风险。

研究设计

回顾性队列研究。

设置

三级护理中心。

患者

100 只耳朵(50 只伴有 SCD,50 只匹配的无 SCD 对照)。

干预

平板 CT 成像。

主要观察指标

(1)SCD 耳的其他裂孔的患病率,(2)对照的裂孔,以及(3)在其他报告的裂孔位置(耳蜗-颈内动脉、外侧半规管[SCC]和乳突、面神经-外侧 SCC、前庭水管、后 SCC-颈静脉球、后 SCC-后颅窝)的耳壳厚度。在应用 Bonferroni 校正多重比较后,组间比较在 p < 0.007 时被认为具有统计学意义。

结果

不包括 SCD,SCD 组中有 2/50(4%)出现 0.04 个额外裂孔,对照组中有 2/50(4%)出现 0.04 个非 SCD 裂孔(p > 0.007)。在 SCD 组中,有一个裂孔位于耳蜗和颈动脉之间,一个位于后 SCC 和后颅窝之间。对照组有一个扩大的前庭水管和一个面神经和外侧 SCC 之间的裂孔。作为一个整体,SCD 耳朵的前庭水管更宽(0.68 ± 0.20 与 0.51 ± 0.30 mm,p < 0.007),后 SCC 和后颅窝之间的骨更薄(3.12 ± 1.43 与 4.34 ± 1.67 mm,p < 0.007)。面神经和外侧 SCC 之间的骨在 SCD 耳朵中更厚(0.77 ± 0.23 与 0.55 ± 0.27 mm,p < 0.007),而在耳蜗-颈内动脉、外侧 SCC 和乳突处没有差异(p > 0.007)。

结论

SCD 并不会增加同一耳壳中出现第二个裂孔的可能性。与对照组相比,SCD 患者的耳壳骨可能天生更薄,尤其是在后 SCC 附近,那里的前庭水管可能会扩大。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验