Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Superior Canal Dehiscence and the Risk of Additional Dehiscences: A Retrospective CT Cohort Study.
Shankar, Ahjeetha; Nagururu, Nimesh V; Pearl, Monica S; Shankar, Adeethyia; Carey, John P; Ward, Bryan K.
Afiliación
  • Shankar A; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
  • Nagururu NV; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
  • Pearl MS; Department of Radiology, Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC.
  • Shankar A; Brown University, Providence, RI.
  • Carey JP; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
  • Ward BK; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Otol Neurotol ; 45(7): e525-e531, 2024 Aug 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38995721
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Determine if superior canal dehiscence (SCD) found on flat-panel CT increases the risk for other defects in the otic capsule. STUDY

DESIGN:

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING:

Tertiary care center. PATIENTS One hundred ears (50 with SCD and 50 matched controls without SCD).

INTERVENTIONS:

Flat-panel CT imaging. MAIN OUTCOME

MEASURES:

(1) Prevalence of other dehiscences in SCD ears, (2) dehiscences in controls, and (3) otic capsule thickness in other reported dehiscence locations (cochlea-carotid, lateral semicircular canal [SCC] and mastoid, facial nerve-lateral SCC, vestibular aqueduct, posterior SCC-jugular bulb, posterior SCC-posterior fossa). Between-group comparisons were considered significant at p < 0.007 after applying the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS:

Not including the SCD, there was a mean of 0.04 additional dehiscences in the SCD group (n = 2/50, 4%) and 0.04 non-SCD dehiscences in the controls (n = 2/50, 4%, p > 0.007). In the SCD group, there was one dehiscence between the cochlea and carotid artery and one between the posterior SCC and posterior fossa. The control group had one enlarged vestibular aqueduct and one dehiscence between the facial nerve and lateral SCC. As a group, SCD ears had wider vestibular aqueducts (0.68 ± 0.20 vs 0.51 ± 0.30 mm, p < 0.007) and thinner bone between the posterior SCC and posterior fossa (3.12 ± 1.43 vs 4.34 ± 1.67 mm, p < 0.007). The bone between the facial nerve and lateral SCC was thicker in SCD ears (0.77 ± 0.23 vs 0.55 ± 0.27 mm, p < 0.007) and no different for cochlea-carotid, and lateral SCC and mastoid (p > 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS:

SCD does not increase the likelihood of a second dehiscence in the same otic capsule. SCD patients may have congenitally thinner otic capsule bones compared to controls, particularly near the posterior SCC, where the vestibular aqueduct may be enlarged.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X / Canales Semicirculares / Dehiscencia del Canal Semicircular Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Otol Neurotol Asunto de la revista: NEUROLOGIA / OTORRINOLARINGOLOGIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X / Canales Semicirculares / Dehiscencia del Canal Semicircular Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Otol Neurotol Asunto de la revista: NEUROLOGIA / OTORRINOLARINGOLOGIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article