Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:36:32.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ongoing dilemma of residual cholesteatoma detection: are current magnetic resonance imaging techniques good enough?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2010

M P A Clark ,
B D Westerberg  and
D M Fenton
M P A Clark*
Affiliation:
Rotary Hearing Clinic, Division of Otolaryngology, St Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
B D Westerberg
Affiliation:
Rotary Hearing Clinic, Division of Otolaryngology, St Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
D M Fenton
Affiliation:
Radiology Department, St Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Matthew Clark, Consultant Otolaryngologist, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester GL1 3NN, UK. E-mail: matthew.clark@glos.nhs.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

There is a clear clinical need to reliably detect residual cholesteatoma after canal wall up mastoid surgery. Ideally, this would be achieved through non-invasive radiological means rather than second-look surgery, thus preventing morbidity in those patients in whom no residual disease is found.

Case report:

We describe a case in which non-echo-planar, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging sequences were used pre-operatively, and compared with subsequent surgical findings. This case highlights both the potential of this increasingly popular magnetic resonance technique and also its current limitations.

Discussion:

Various magnetic resonance sequencing types have been employed to try to reliably detect residual cholesteatoma, each with varying success. Non-echo-planar, fast-spin echo, diffusion-weighted sequences currently appear to be the most reliable at detecting even the smallest pearl of cholesteatoma, down to 2 mm in diameter. In our unit, a propeller, diffusion-weighted image sequence is employed on a GE Signa scanner. However, both this case study and other reports show that the accuracy of the technique is not 100 per cent. This begs the question of how much one can rely on the findings of such techniques when deciding whether second-look surgery is indicated. Scan-negative patients will require continued follow up as, at the time of imaging, residual disease may not have reached a detectable size.

Keywords

CholesteatomaDiffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Type
Clinical Records
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 124 , Issue 12 , December 2010 , pp. 1300 - 1304
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Robinson, JM. Cholesteatoma: skin in the wrong place. J R Soc Med 1997;90:93–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2De Foer, B, Vercruysse, J-P, Bernaerts, A, Maes, J, Deckers, F, Michiels, J et al. The value of single-shot turbo spin-echo diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the detection of middle ear cholesteatoma. Neuroradiol 2007;49:841–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Ayache, D, Williams, MT, Lejeune, D, Corre, Al. Usefulness of delayed postcontrast magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of residual cholesteatoma after canal wall-up tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 2005;115:607–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Vercruysse, J-P, De Foer, B, Pouillon, M, Somers, T, Casselman, J, Offeciers, E. The value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis of primary acquired and residual cholesteatoma: a surgical verified study of 100 patients. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1461–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Venail, F, Bonafe, A, Poirrier, V, Mondain, M, Uziel, A. Comparison of echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging and delayed postcontrast T1-weighted MR imaging for the detection of residual cholesteatoma. Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1363–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Padilla-Thornton, A, Zand, KR, Barrett, B, Stein, L, Andrew, G, Forster, BB. Canadian Association of Radiologists national advisory on gadolinium administration and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Can Assoc Radiol J 2008;59:237–40Google ScholarPubMed
7Lehman, P, Saliou, G, Brochart, C, Page, C, Deschepper, B, Vallée, JN et al. 3T MR imaging of postoperative recurrent middle ear cholesteatomas: value of periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:423–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8De Foer, B, Vercruysse, J-P, Bernaerts, A, Deckers, F, Pouillon, M, Somer, T et al. Detection of postoperative residual cholesteatoma with non-echo-planar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:513–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Dhepnorrarat, RC, Wood, B, Rajan, GP. Postoperative non-echo-planar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging changes after cholesteatoma surgery: implications for cholesteatoma screening. Otol Neurotol 2008;30:54–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar