首页> 外文期刊>中华耳科学杂志(英文版) >Disagreement in middle ear volume estimation between tympanometry and three-dimensional volume reconstruction in the context of tympanic membrane perforation
【24h】

Disagreement in middle ear volume estimation between tympanometry and three-dimensional volume reconstruction in the context of tympanic membrane perforation

机译:鼓膜穿孔背景下中耳鼓膜容积法和三维容积重建法在中耳容积估计上的分歧

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Introduction:Middle ear volume (MEV) is a clinically relevant parameter across middle ear diseases. MEV values between these techniques have never before been tested for agreement in ears with perforated tympanic membranes (TMs). Methods:Middle ears were identified from 36 patients ranging 18-89 years of age with TM perforations who underwent tympanometry and temporal bone computed tomography (CT) between 2005 and 2015. MEVs calculated by both tympanometry and three-dimensional volume reconstruction (3DVR) were analyzed for agreement using Bland Altman plots. The differences between tympanometric and 3DVR MEV values for each given middle ear were characterized across MEV quartiles (1=smallest;4=largest) and across increasing states of middle ear disease using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon testing with Bonferroni correction. Results: Bland Altman plots demonstrated significant disagreement between MEV measurement techniques. Differences between tympano-metric (T) and 3DVR MEV values were significantly greater with increasing average (i.e. (T+3DVR)/2)) MEV per linear regression (p < 0.0001). Significance was demonstrated between fourth and first average MEV quartiles (p = 0.0024), fourth and second quartiles (p=0.0024), third and first quartiles (p=0.0048), and third and second quartiles (p=0.048). Absolute MEV difference was not significantly different across varying states of middle ear disease (p=0.44). Conclusion:Statistically and clinically significant disagreement was demonstrated between tympanometric and 3DVR MEV values. Studies that vary in MEV estimation techniques may be expected to demonstrate significantly different results. These preliminary results suggest that cli-nicians should endeavor to seek further confirmation when interpreting high tympanometric MEV values.
机译:简介:中耳音量(MEV)是跨中耳疾病的临床相关参数。从未对这些技术之间的MEV值进行过耳穿孔鼓膜(TMs)一致性测试。方法:从2005年至2015年间,对36例年龄在18-89岁的TM穿孔患者中耳进行鼓室分压和颞骨计算机断层扫描(CT)。通过鼓室分压和三维体积重建(3DVR)计算MEV。使用Bland Altman图分析一致性。使用Kruskal-Wallis和Wilcoxon检验以及Bonferroni校正,通过MEV四分位数(1 =最小; 4 =最大),对每个给定中耳的鼓室图和3DVR MEV值之间的差异进行了表征。结果:Bland Altman图证明了MEV测量技术之间的重大分歧。随着线性回归的平均值(即(T + 3DVR)/ 2)MEV的增加,鼓室量度(T)与3DVR MEV值之间的差异明显更大(p <0.0001)。在第四和第一平均MEV四分位数(p = 0.0024),第四和第二四分位数(p = 0.0024),第三和第一四分位数(p = 0.0048)以及第三和第二四分位数(p = 0.048)之间证明了显着性。在中耳疾病的不同状态下,绝对MEV差异无显着性差异(p = 0.44)。结论:在鼓室图和3DVR MEV值之间存在统计学和临床​​上的显着分歧。预计在MEV估算技术方面的研究会显示出明显不同的结果。这些初步结果表明,临床医生在解释高鼓膜MEV值时应努力寻求进一步的证实。

著录项

  • 来源
    《中华耳科学杂志(英文版)》 |2017年第002期|74-79|共6页
  • 作者单位

    Division of Head and Neck Surgery&Communication Sciences, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA;

    Computational Biology&Bioinformatics PhD Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;

    Division of Head and Neck Surgery&Communication Sciences, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA;

    Division of Head and Neck Surgery&Communication Sciences, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA;

    Computational Biology&Bioinformatics PhD Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;

    Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;

  • 收录信息 中国科学引文数据库(CSCD);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-19 03:45:29
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号