Evaluation of Hearing Loss: Understanding Audiologic Testing to Refine Image Interpretation.

The standard of reference for diagnosing and characterizing hearing loss is audiologic testing. The results of audiologic testing inform the imaging algorithm and the differential diagnosis for the underlying cause. Pure-tone audiometry tests the ability to hear tones across different frequencies, and the results are displayed as an audiogram. Tympanometry measures tympanic membrane compliance as a function of pressure to generate a tympanogram. Acoustic reflex testing helps differentiate third window lesions from other causes of conductive hearing loss. Clinical and audiologic assessment of sensorineural hearing loss helps in differentiating cochlear from retrocochlear causes. Symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss is typical of cochlear disease. Asymmetry increases the likelihood of a retrocochlear lesion, the most common of which among adults is vestibular schwannoma. Unlike patients with sensorineural hearing loss, who commonly have normal imaging studies, patients with conductive hearing loss are expected to have abnormal temporal bone CT studies. By incorporating the results of audiologic testing into their evaluation, radiologists can perform a more informed and more intentional search for the structural cause of hearing loss. The authors describe several audiogram configurations that suggest specific underlying mechanisms of conductive hearing loss. By providing a practical and accessible summary of the basics of audiologic testing, the authors empower the radiologist to leverage relevant clinical information and audiologic test results to interpret temporal bone imaging more confidently and more accurately, particularly temporal bone CT in the setting of conductive hearing loss. ©RSNA, 2024.

Radiation dose monitoring in pediatric fluoroscopy: comparison of fluoroscopy time and dose-area product thresholds for identifying high-exposure cases.

BACKGROUND: Fluoroscopy time has been used as a surrogate for radiation dose monitoring in pediatric fluoroscopy; however it does not account for factors such as magnification or collimation. Dose-area product (DAP) is a more accurate measure of radiation exposure but its dependence on patient weight and body-part thickness is a challenge in children of varying ages. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fluoroscopy time and DAP produce concurrent results when they are used to identify high-exposure cases, and to establish radiation dose thresholds for our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 2-year period we prospectively monitored pediatric fluoroscopy studies performed at the Children's Hospital at Montefiore. We recorded study type, fluoroscopy time, DAP, patient age, weight and height. We then calculated 90th percentile fluoroscopy time and DAP thresholds for weight and age. RESULTS: We evaluated 1,011 cases (453 upper gastrointestinal [UGI] series, 266 voiding cystourethrograms [VCUGs], 120 contrast enemas, 108 speech studies, and 64 esophagrams). Fluoroscopy time demonstrated moderate correlation with DAP (rs=0.45, P<0.001, Spearman rank). DAP strongly correlated with patient weight (rs=0.71, P<0.001) and age (rs=0.70, P<0.001). Concordance of cases exceeding 90th percentile thresholds for fluoroscopy time and DAP were κ=0.27 for UGI series and κ=0.49 for VCUG for weight-based cutoffs, and κ=0.36 for UGI series and κ=0.40 for VCUG for age-based cutoffs. CONCLUSION: The limited correlation of fluoroscopy time with DAP suggests these methods are not equivalent for dose monitoring. However, the strong correlation of DAP with patient weight and age presents a challenge for establishing DAP thresholds in children, who range widely in size. Despite controlling for weight or age, there was limited overlap of cases exceeding the 90th percentile threshold for fluoroscopy time and DAP. This further reinforces the non-overlapping outcome of these two methods and indicates that fluoroscopy time might be inadequate for dose monitoring.