Role of Three-dimensional Computed Tomography in the Assessment of Nasoorbitoethmoidal Fractures

Remmler, Daniel; Denny, Arlen D.; Gosain, Arun K.; Subichin, Steven J.

doi:10.1097/00000637-200044050-00015

Cited by 50 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have assessed 3D reconstructions of the skull base [10][11][12][13][14]. Most of these studies focused on specific parts of the skull base, such as the anterior fossa [10] or the temporal bone [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three-dimensional fracture visualisation of multidetector CT of the skull base in trauma patients: comparison of three reconstruction algorithms

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively assess the detection rate of skull-base fractures for three different three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction methods of cranial CT examinations in trauma patients. A total of 130 cranial CT examinations of patients with previous head trauma were subjected to 3D reconstruction of the skull base, using solid (SVR) and transparent (TVR) volume-rendering technique and maximum intensity projection (MIP). Three radiologists independently evaluated all reconstructions as well as standard high-resolution multiplanar reformations (HR-MPRs). Mean fracture detection rates for all readers reading rotating reconstructions were 39, 36, 61 and 64% for SVR, TVR, MIP and HR-MPR respectively. Although not significantly different from HR-MPR with respect to sensitivity (P = 0.9), MIP visualised 18% of fractures that were not reported in HR-MPR. Because of the relatively low detection rate using HR-MPRs alone, we recommend reading MIP reconstructions in addition to the obligatory HR-MPRs to improve fracture detection.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of these studies focused on specific parts of the skull base, such as the anterior fossa [10] or the temporal bone [13]. Only one study from 1987 [14] assessed the diagnostic value of 3D reconstructions of the whole skull base and found that no substantial improvement in diagnosis can be expected from this method.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional fracture visualisation of multidetector CT of the skull base in trauma patients: comparison of three reconstruction algorithms

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, recently 3D CT has found a widespread use in maxillofacial surgery and orthodontics for various clinical and research purposes (Brooks, 1993;Elolf et al, 1998;Kawamata et al, 1998Kawamata et al, , 2000Naito et al, 1998;Tsunori et al, 1998;Cavalcanti et al, 1999;Fisher et al, 1999;Franca et al, 2000;Gorgu et al, 2000;Remmler et al, 2000;Papadopoulos et al, 2002). Despite these advantages, there are some problems associated with 3D CT.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional fetal cephalometry: An evaluation of the reliability of cephalometric measurements based on three-dimensional CT reconstructions and on dry skulls of sheep fetuses

Papadopoulos

Jannowitz

Boettcher

et al. 2005

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Successful management of MRFs requires early diagnosis and accurate determination of the extent of injury [5]. The diagnosis of MRFs is performed by physical examination and confirmed with CT scans [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Midfacial Fractures: A Scoring Method and Validation on 117 Patients

Zollino

Arduin

Brunelli

et al. 2007

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The midfacial region (MR) is located in the middle-third of the face, composed of several bones and surrounded by complex anatomical structures so that MR fractures (MRFs) often involve other parts of the face. A staging system for classifying MRFs is of paramount importance in order to exchange information among trauma centers. Le Fort described three lines of fractures but still there is no scoring method to stage MRFs. In this article, a classification for MRFs is proposed. It is based on Le Fort's three lines and it defines seven facial units. MRFs can be staged as follows: F in situ = a fracture line without fragment mobility (i.e. greensticked); F1 = a fracture involving one MR unit (MRU); F2 = a fracture involving two MRUs; F3 = a fracture involving three MRUs; F4 = a fracture involving four or more MRUs or neighboring anatomical regions (i.e. mandible, orbit and skull). To evaluate the suitability of the proposed classification a retrospective study on a series of 117 MRFs was performed. Age, gender, new stage, clinical diagnosis at admission, type of surgery, and outcome were considered. A good correlation between the proposed classification and the studied variables was detected. In conclusion, the proposed classification is a simple and precise method of staging MRFs. It can summarize MRFs and be used in daily practice. It is our understanding, however, that a multi-centers study should be performed before the effectiveness of the proposed classification can be clearly stated.

show abstract

Role of Three-dimensional Computed Tomography in the Assessment of Nasoorbitoethmoidal Fractures

Cited by 50 publications

References 0 publications

Three-dimensional fracture visualisation of multidetector CT of the skull base in trauma patients: comparison of three reconstruction algorithms

Three-dimensional fracture visualisation of multidetector CT of the skull base in trauma patients: comparison of three reconstruction algorithms

Three-dimensional fetal cephalometry: An evaluation of the reliability of cephalometric measurements based on three-dimensional CT reconstructions and on dry skulls of sheep fetuses

Midfacial Fractures: A Scoring Method and Validation on 117 Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About