Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grandis, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Yu, V. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Grandis, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Yu, V. L.

Radiology, Vol 196, 499-504, Copyright © 1995 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Necrotizing (malignant) external otitis: prospective comparison of CT and MR imaging in diagnosis and follow-up

JR Grandis, HD Curtin and VL Yu
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh, Montefiore University Hospital, PA 15213, USA.

PURPOSE: To compare computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the diagnosis and follow-up of necrotizing external otitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT and MR imaging were performed in seven patients at diagnosis and at 6 and 12 months after initiation of therapy. Imaging findings were compared and correlated with the clinical course of the disease. RESULTS: Cortical bone erosion was best seen on CT scans (n = 5 vs n = 0 on MR images) and failed to normalize with cure. Subtemporal soft-tissue abnormalities (n = 7 with both modalities) were better appreciated with MR imaging and had low signal intensity on T1- and T2-weighted images. Soft-tissue changes improved but did not disappear completely with treatment. CONCLUSION: CT is preferred at initial diagnosis, as small cortical erosions are better seen. Either modality can be used to follow up soft-tissue evolution. MR imaging may be better for evaluation and follow-up of meningeal enhancement and changes within the osseous medullary cavity.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1995 by the Radiological Society of North America.