PurposeThe aim of this pilot study was to assess the clinical feasibility, diagnostic yield, advantages, and disadvantages of structured reporting for routine MRI-reading in patients with primary diagnosis of intracranial tumors as compared to traditional neuroradiological free text reporting.MethodsA structured MRI reporting template was developed covering pathological, anatomical, and functional aspects in an itemized fashion. Retrospectively, 60 consecutive patients with first diagnosis of an intracranial tumor were selected from the radiology information system/PACS system. Structured reporting was performed by a senior neuroradiologist, blinded to clinical and radiological data. Reporting times were measured per patient. The diagnostic content was compared to free text reporting which was independently performed on the same MRI exams by two other neuroradiologists. The comparisons were categorized per item as: “congruent,” “partially congruent,” “incongruent,” or “not mentioned in free-style report.”ResultsTumor-related items: congruent findings were found for all items (17/17) with congruence rates ranging between 98 and 39% per item. Four items achieved congruence rates ≥90%, 5 items >80%, and 9 items ≥70%. Partially congruent findings were found for all items in up to 50% per item. Incongruent findings were present in 7/17 items in up to 5% per item. Free text reports did not mention 12 of 17 items (range 7–43% per item). Non-tumor-related items, including brain atrophy, microangiopathy, vascular pathologies, and various extracranial pathologies, which were not mentioned in free-text reports between 18 and 85% per item. Mean reporting time for structured reporting was 7:49 min (3:12–17:06 min).ConclusionFirst results showed that expert structured reporting ensured reliable detection of all relevant brain pathologies along with reproducible documentation of all predefined diagnostic items, which was not always the case for free text reporting. A mean reporting time of 8 min per patient seems clinically feasible.

Among walk-in patients who underwent MRI for acute headache with low suspicion for intracranial bleeding, 20% had a significant MRI finding. A simple clinical score identified all patients with significant findings that explained the headache. If prospectively validated, this might be a useful tool in selecting those walk-in headache patients requiring urgent cranial MRI.

ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of endolymphatic hydrops (EH) in cochlear implant (CI) candidates with idiopathic profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and its influence on the preservation of audiovestibular function after cochlear implantation.Study DesignProspective case series.SettingTertiary referral center.PatientsCI candidates with idiopathic progressive SNHL, but without classic EH-associated symptoms.InterventionsDelayed intravenous gadolinium-enhanced inner ear fluid-attenuated inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging as well as pure-tone audiograms, video head impulse tests, and vestibular evoked myogenic potentials before and 4 weeks after cochlear implantation.Main Outcome MeasuresPrevalence of EH before cochlear implantation, audiovestibular function before and after surgery in hydropic and nonhydropic ears.ResultsThirty-two ears in 16 CI candidates were included. Nine ears (28%) with EH were detected. Although preoperative hearing thresholds, utricular function, and semicircular canal function were not different between the two groups, saccular function was reduced in hydropic ears. Ten subjects received a unilateral CI. Of these, 3 (30%) showed EH on the implanted side. There was no difference regarding postoperative hearing loss between the two groups, but the results point toward a higher vulnerability of hydropic ears with respect to loss of otolith function after cochlear implantation.ConclusionsThis is the first study showing that EH can be assumed in about one third of CI candidates with idiopathic profound SNHL, but no classic EH-associated symptoms. Preliminary results suggest that EH has no influence on the preservation of cochlear function but could be a risk factor for loss of otolith function after cochlear implantation.