Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 16, Issue 7, pp 1461–1467 | Cite as

The value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis of primary acquired and residual cholesteatoma: a surgical verified study of 100 patients

  • Jean-Philippe VercruysseEmail author
  • Bert De Foer
  • Marc Pouillon
  • Thomas Somers
  • Jan Casselman
  • Erwin Offeciers
Head and Neck

Abstract

Our goal was to determine the value of echo-planar diffusion-weighted MR imaging in detecting the presence of primary acquired and residual cholesteatoma. One hundred patients were evaluated by preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. The patient population consisted of a first group of 55 patients evaluated in order to detect the presence of a primary acquired cholesteatoma. In the second group, 45 patients were evaluated for the presence of a residual cholesteatoma 8–18 months after cholesteatoma surgery, prior to second-look surgery. Surgical findings were compared with preoperative findings on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of both groups was assessed. In the group of primary surgery patients, hyperintense signal compatible with cholesteatoma was found in 89% of cases with a sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value for DWI of 81, 100, 100 and 40%, respectively. In the group of second-look surgery patients, only one of seven surgically verified residual cases was correctly diagnosed using DWI, with a sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 12.5, 100, 100 and 72%, respectively. These results confirm the value of DWI in detecting primary cholesteatoma, but show the poor capability of DWI in detecting small residual cholesteatoma.

Keywords

Cholesteatoma Diffusion EPI-DWI 

References

  1. 1.
    Tierney PA, Pracy P, Blaney SP, Bowdler DA (1999) An assessment of the value of the preoperative computed tomography scans prior to otoendoscopic ‘second look’ in intact canal wall mastoid surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 24:274–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blaney SP, Tierney P, Oyarazabal M, Bowdler DA (2000) CT scanning in “second look” combined approach tympanoplasty. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 121:79–81Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wake M, Robinson JM, Witcombe JB, Bazerbachi S, Stansbie JM, Phelps PD (1992) Detection of recurrent cholesteatoma by computerized tomography after ‘closed cavity’ mastoid surgery. J Laryngol Otol 106:393–395PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Denoyelle F, Silberman B, Garabedian E (1994) Value of magnetic resonance imaging associated with X-ray computed tomography in the screening of residual cholesteatoma after primary surgery. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 111:85–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kimitsuki T, Suda Y, Kawano H, Tono T, Komune S (2001) Correlation between MRI findings and second-look operation in cholesteatoma surgery. ORL J Otorinolaryngol Relat Spec 63:291–293Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vanden Abeele D, Coen E, Parizel PM, Van de Heyning P (1999) Can MRI replace a second look operation in cholesteatoma surgery? Acta Otolaryngol 119:555–561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams MT, Ayache D, Alberti C, Heran F, Lafitte F, Elmaleh-Berges M, Piekarski JD (2003) Detection of postoperative residual cholesteatoma with delayed contrast-enhanced MR imaging initial findings. Eur Radiol 13:169–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ayache D, Wiliams MT, Lejeune D, Corre A (2005) Usefulness of delayed postcontrast magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of residual cholesteatoma after canal wall-up tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 115:607–610PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aikele P, Kittner T, Offergeld C, Kaftan H, Huttenbrink KB, Laniado M (2003) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of cholesteatoma in pediatric and adult patients who have undergone middle ear surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:261–265PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fitzek C, Mewes T, Fitzek S, Mentzel HJ, Hunsche S, Stoeter P (2002) Diffusion-weighted MRI of cholesteatomas of the petrous bone. J Magn Reson Imaging 15:636–641CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maheshwari S, Mukherji SK (2002) Diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating recurrent cholesteatoma from granulation tissue after mastoidectomy: case report. Am J Neuroradiol 23:847–849PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mark AS, Casselman JW (2001) Anatomy and disease of the temporal bone. In: Atlas SW (ed) Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and spine, 3rd edn. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1363–1432Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Foer B, Casselman JW, Govaere F, Vercruysse JP, Pouillon M, Somers T, Offeciers E (2002) The role of MRI and diffusion-weighted images in the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma. Acta Radiol Port 14:89 (abstract)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stasolla A, Magluilo G, Parrotto D, Luppi G, Marini M (2004) Detection of postoperative relapsing/residual cholesteatomas with diffusion-weighted echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging. Otol Neurotol 25:879–884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin N, Sterkers O, Nahum H (1990) Chronic inflammatory disease of the middle ear cavities: Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 176:399–405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ishii K, Takahashi S, Kobayashi T, Matsumoto K, Ishibashi T (1991) MR imaging of middle ear cholesteatomas. J Comput Assist Tomogr 15:934–937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robert Y, Carcasset S, Rocourt N, Hennequin C, Dubrulle F, Lemaitre L (1995) Congenital cholesteatoma of the temporal bone: MR findings and comparison with CT. Am J Neuroradiol 16:755–761PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lansberg MG, Norbash AM, Marks MP, Tong DC, Moseley ME, Albers GW (2000) Advantages of adding diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to conventional magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating acute stroke. Arch Neurol 57:1311–1316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van den Brink JS, Watanabe Y, Kuhl CK, Chung T, Muthupillai R, Van Cauteren M, Yamada K, Dymarkowski S, Bogaert J, Maki JH, Matos C, Casselman JW, Hoogeveen RM (2003) Implications of SENSE MR in routine clinical practice. Eur J Radiol 46:3–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Philippe Vercruysse
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bert De Foer
    • 2
  • Marc Pouillon
    • 2
  • Thomas Somers
    • 1
  • Jan Casselman
    • 2
    • 3
  • Erwin Offeciers
    • 1
  1. 1.University Department of ENTA.Z. Sint-Augustinus HospitalAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyA.Z. Sint-Augustinus HospitalAntwerpBelgium
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyA.Z. Sint-Jan AVBrugesBelgium

Personalised recommendations