Larynx and hypopharynx: MR imaging with surface coils.

Lufkin, Robert B.; Hanafee, William N.; Wortham, D; Hoover, Larry A.

doi:10.1148/radiology.158.3.3945748

Cited by 58 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Kernspintomographisch ist dies erst bei gröeren Lymphomen möglich (siehe Methoden). Der Einsatz speziell geformter Senderspulen für den Haisbereich und kleinere Bildausschnitte (höhere Vergro{erung) bringen die Nachweisgrenze, wie andere Studien zeigen, jedoch in den Bereich von CT und US (14). chungstechnik US in der Hand eines Geübten dem vorgegebenen Schnittbildverfahren CT ist.…”

Section: Si:;unclassified

Nachweis und Beurteilung von Halslymphknotenmetastasen bei Kopf-Hals-Tumoren

Heppt

Haels²,

Lenarz³

et al. 1989

Laryngo-Rhino-Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From 1984 to 1987, seventy-two patients with squamous cell carcinomas involving oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx and cervical lymph nodes, who underwent surgery, were examined to determine the value of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR), high-resolution real-time sonography (US) and palpation in preoperative staging of cervical nodal metastases. The clinical staging was compared with the microscopic findings in the neck specimens and with operative reports. For the identification and description of cervical lymph node metastases, US and CT are more valuable than MR and palpation. In comparison to CT, however, US has advantages in most cervical areas as a dynamic method with variable representation of interesting regions. False positive errors are related to confusion with inflammatory nodes in all examinations. Metastatic infiltration of surrounding tissue especially of neck vessels, are best recognised by means of US and MR. However, the high rates of sensitivity and low rates of specificity of all methods point to the possibility of a great number of false positive errors in demonstrating tissue infiltration.

show abstract

Section: Si:;unclassified

Nachweis und Beurteilung von Halslymphknotenmetastasen bei Kopf-Hals-Tumoren

Heppt

Haels²,

Lenarz³

et al. 1989

Laryngo-Rhino-Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The patient was asked to press the tongue onto the floor tion and more experience in tissue characterization, it appears likely that MRI will become the one clinically most significant diagnostic tool. [10][11][12][13] CT is limited by x-ray beam hardening, movement artefacts, and streak artefacts from dental fillings.…”

Section: Identification Of the Tongue Thirdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tongue cancer. Sonographic assessment of tumor stage.

Fruehwald¹,

Salomonowitz²,

Neuhold³

et al. 1987

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an effort to improve preoperative evaluation of tumors of the tongue, a prospective study on the value of ultrasound (US) for the staging of 50 surgically proven cancers of the tongue and floor of mouth was performed. Sonography was correlated with clinical staging and surgical outcome. Real-time high-frequency transducers and an echo-free silicone interface were used. The dorsal and middle thirds of the tongue were scanned from a submental access and the tip of the tongue directly. US accurately defined tumor sizes and locations in all cases. US staged cancers correctly in all cases but one. In contrast, clinical staging was correct in only 66% of cases. Surgically relevant details, such as crossing of the midline of the tongue or infiltration of the lateral pharyngeal wall, were detected with US. The major limitations of US include the nonvisualization of the epiglottis and retropharyngeal space as well as bone infiltration.

show abstract

“…This study and the additional 11 articles that were identified by our search strategy were included for further analysis. Thus, in total, 12 articles were selected for critical appraisal . No additional data were obtained from study authors after emailing, because either no contact details were found or authors did not respond to our requests for additional information.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%