Sonography versus plain x rays in diagnosis of nasal fractures.

American journal of rhinology Pub Date : 2008-11-01 DOI:10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3239

Robert Gürkov, Dirk Clevert, Eike Krause

{"title":"Sonography versus plain x rays in diagnosis of nasal fractures.","authors":"Robert Gürkov, Dirk Clevert, Eike Krause","doi":"10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The standard imaging procedure for suspected nasal fractures has been radiography (XR). However, its usefulness for clinical decision making is highly controversial. High-resolution ultrasonography now offers a promising new diagnostic imaging option. In this study we compared the diagnostic value of high-resolution ultrasonography and conventional XR in the evaluation of suspected nasal fractures.Methods: A prospective single-blinded study was performed. Ultrasound (US) and XR findings in 80 patients with suspected nasal fractures were compared with the definite clinical diagnosis with respect to sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.Results: For detection of fractures of the nasal dorsum, both modalities had high sensitivity (98 and 88% for US and XR, respectively) and specificity (95% for both US and XR). In lateral nasal wall fractures, specificity was higher for XR (75% versus 94%). Sensitivity was significantly higher for the US examination (98% versus 28%). In summary, the accuracy was higher for US.Conclusion: When available, US should be the first-line imaging procedure in the evaluation of nasal fractures.","PeriodicalId":72175,"journal":{"name":"American journal of rhinology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3239","citationCount":"39","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of rhinology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 39

Abstract

Background: The standard imaging procedure for suspected nasal fractures has been radiography (XR). However, its usefulness for clinical decision making is highly controversial. High-resolution ultrasonography now offers a promising new diagnostic imaging option. In this study we compared the diagnostic value of high-resolution ultrasonography and conventional XR in the evaluation of suspected nasal fractures.

Methods: A prospective single-blinded study was performed. Ultrasound (US) and XR findings in 80 patients with suspected nasal fractures were compared with the definite clinical diagnosis with respect to sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.

Results: For detection of fractures of the nasal dorsum, both modalities had high sensitivity (98 and 88% for US and XR, respectively) and specificity (95% for both US and XR). In lateral nasal wall fractures, specificity was higher for XR (75% versus 94%). Sensitivity was significantly higher for the US examination (98% versus 28%). In summary, the accuracy was higher for US.

Conclusion: When available, US should be the first-line imaging procedure in the evaluation of nasal fractures.

查看原文本刊更多论文

超声与x线平片对鼻骨折的诊断价值。

背景:怀疑鼻骨折的标准成像程序是x线摄影(XR)。然而，它对临床决策的有用性是非常有争议的。高分辨率超声检查现在提供了一个有前途的新的诊断成像选择。在本研究中，我们比较了高分辨率超声和常规x光检查在评估疑似鼻骨折中的诊断价值。方法:采用前瞻性单盲研究。本文对80例疑似鼻骨折患者的超声和x光检查结果与临床明确诊断的敏感性、特异性和准确性进行了比较。结果:对于鼻背骨折的检测，两种方式都具有很高的灵敏度(usr和XR分别为98%和88%)和特异性(usr和XR均为95%)。在侧鼻壁骨折中，XR的特异性更高(75%对94%)。美国检查的敏感性明显更高(98%对28%)。总之，美国的准确率更高。结论:在条件允许的情况下，超声应作为评估鼻骨折的一线影像学手段。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

American journal of rhinology

自引率

0.00%

发文量