Endoscopic finding versus CT nose and paranasal sinuses appearance in chronic rhinosinusitis; A comparative study

Mohammed Radef Dawood, Abbas Hamad, Mohanad Hussien
{"title":"Endoscopic finding versus CT nose and paranasal sinuses appearance in chronic rhinosinusitis; A comparative study","authors":"Mohammed Radef Dawood, Abbas Hamad, Mohanad Hussien","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0053.9173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common disease encountered in otorhinolaryngology field, however, there is no consensus about its definitive diagnostic method. Nasal endoscopy and sinus CT scan are successfully used as diagnostic modalities. Aim: To evaluate the correlation between nasal endoscopy as compared to sinus CT in CRS diagnosis. Material and methods: A prospective randomized study, in which, 80 patients attended outpatient ENT clinic, from March 2018 to April 2019, whom met the diagnostic criteria of CRS guidelines, were recruited, and the diagnostic modalities were; nasal endoscopy using Lund-Kennedy scoring system, followed with sinus CT scan using Lund-Mackay scoring system within 1 week. Both modalities were compared, with focus on pathological findings, as well as, the specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values, in addition, to the anatomic variations data. All the above-mentioned respective parameters were statistically analyzed. Results: Nasal obstruction (92.5%), maxillary sinus (82.5%) with mucosal thicken opacity (83.75%) by CT scan, and muco- -purulent middle meatus discharge (73.75%) by nasal endoscopy. The association between diagnostic endoscopy and CT scan had P value = 0.001 by Student-t-test, and r = 0.734 by Pearson`s correlation coefficient. Diagnostic accuracy of nasal endoscopy was 95%, sensitivity was 91.6 % (95% CI 87.38–93.67%), specificity was 88.3% (95% CI 85.91–89.59%), while positive predictive value 81.7% and negative predictive value was 79.87%. Conclusion: Strong and statistical correlation between the nasal endoscopic and sinus CT findings, also between nasal obstruction symptom and nasal endoscopy, while, no significant difference on anatomical variants data.","PeriodicalId":52362,"journal":{"name":"Polish Otorhinolaryngology Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Otorhinolaryngology Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0053.9173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common disease encountered in otorhinolaryngology field, however, there is no consensus about its definitive diagnostic method. Nasal endoscopy and sinus CT scan are successfully used as diagnostic modalities. Aim: To evaluate the correlation between nasal endoscopy as compared to sinus CT in CRS diagnosis. Material and methods: A prospective randomized study, in which, 80 patients attended outpatient ENT clinic, from March 2018 to April 2019, whom met the diagnostic criteria of CRS guidelines, were recruited, and the diagnostic modalities were; nasal endoscopy using Lund-Kennedy scoring system, followed with sinus CT scan using Lund-Mackay scoring system within 1 week. Both modalities were compared, with focus on pathological findings, as well as, the specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values, in addition, to the anatomic variations data. All the above-mentioned respective parameters were statistically analyzed. Results: Nasal obstruction (92.5%), maxillary sinus (82.5%) with mucosal thicken opacity (83.75%) by CT scan, and muco- -purulent middle meatus discharge (73.75%) by nasal endoscopy. The association between diagnostic endoscopy and CT scan had P value = 0.001 by Student-t-test, and r = 0.734 by Pearson`s correlation coefficient. Diagnostic accuracy of nasal endoscopy was 95%, sensitivity was 91.6 % (95% CI 87.38–93.67%), specificity was 88.3% (95% CI 85.91–89.59%), while positive predictive value 81.7% and negative predictive value was 79.87%. Conclusion: Strong and statistical correlation between the nasal endoscopic and sinus CT findings, also between nasal obstruction symptom and nasal endoscopy, while, no significant difference on anatomical variants data.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
慢性鼻窦炎的内窥镜表现与CT鼻窦和副鼻窦表现的比较比较研究
背景:慢性鼻窦炎(CRS)是耳鼻喉科的常见病,但目前尚无明确的诊断方法。鼻内窥镜和鼻窦CT扫描成功地作为诊断手段。目的:探讨鼻内窥镜与CT在CRS诊断中的相关性。材料与方法:前瞻性随机研究,纳入2018年3月至2019年4月在耳鼻喉科门诊就诊、符合CRS指南诊断标准的患者80例,诊断方式为;鼻内窥镜检查采用Lund-Kennedy评分系统,1周内进行鼻窦CT扫描,采用Lund-Mackay评分系统。对两种方法进行比较,重点关注病理结果,以及特异性、敏感性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值,以及解剖变异数据。对上述各项参数进行统计分析。结果:CT表现为鼻塞(92.5%),上颌窦(82.5%)伴黏膜增厚混浊(83.75%),鼻内镜表现为黏膜化脓性中道分泌物(73.75%)。诊断性内窥镜检查与CT扫描的相关性经学生t检验P值= 0.001,Pearson相关系数r = 0.734。鼻内窥镜诊断准确率为95%,敏感性为91.6% (95% CI 87.38 ~ 93.67%),特异性为88.3% (95% CI 85.91 ~ 89.59%),阳性预测值为81.7%,阴性预测值为79.87%。结论:鼻内窥镜与鼻窦CT表现、鼻塞症状与鼻内窥镜表现具有较强的统计学相关性,而解剖变异数据无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Polish Otorhinolaryngology Review
Polish Otorhinolaryngology Review Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Kontralateralna reinerwacja krtani u pacjenta z prawostronnym porażeniem fałdu głosowego – opis przypadku Endoscopic finding versus CT nose and paranasal sinuses appearance in chronic rhinosinusitis; A comparative study What are the current research results based on EBM recommendations and what they do not recommend in the treatment of chronic tinnitus? Atrophy of the long process of the incus of unknown origin – a rare cause of acquired conductive hearing loss. Clinical case report and a mini-review of literature Sigmoid sinus thrombosis in patient after Bondy surgery - a case report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1