These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative analysis of vestibular endolymphatic hydrops grading methods and hearing loss in Ménière's disease: a retrospective MRI study using 3D-real inversion recovery sequence.
    Author: Han Z, Huang Y, Xie J, Liu Y, Gong S, Yang Z, Wang Z, Zhao P.
    Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2024 Sep; 281(9):4585-4592. PubMed ID: 38630272.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare the correlation between different grading methods of vestibular endolymphatic hydrops (EH) and the severity of hearing loss in Ménière's disease (MD), and evaluate the diagnostic value of these methods in diagnosing MD. METHODS: This retrospective study included 30 patients diagnosed with MD from June 2021 to August 2023. All patients underwent inner ear MR gadolinium-enhanced imaging using three-dimensional (3D)-real inversion recovery sequences and pure-tone audiometry. The EH levels were independently evaluated according to the classification methods outlined by Nakashima et al. (Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 5-8, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016480902729827 ) (M1), Fang et al. (J Laryngol Otol 126:454-459, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215112000060 ) (M2), Barath et al. (Am J Neuroradiol 35:1387-1392, 2014. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3856 ), (M3), Liu et al. (Front Surg 9:874971, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.874971 ), (M4), and Bernaerts et al. (Neuroradiology 61:421-429, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-019-02155-7 ) (M5), with a subsequent comparison of interobserver agreement. After achieving a consensus, an analysis was performed to explore the correlations between vestibular EH grading using different methods, the average hearing thresholds at low-mid, high-, and full frequencies and clinical stages. The diagnostic capabilities of these methods for MD were then compared. RESULTS: The interobserver consistency of M2-M5 was superior to that of M1. The EH grading based on M4 showed a significant correlation with the average hearing thresholds at low-mid, high-, and full frequencies and clinical stages. M1, M2, M3, and M5 correlated with some parameters. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis indicated that M5 significantly outperformed M1, M2, M3, and M4 in terms of diagnostic efficiency for MD. CONCLUSION: M4 showed the strongest correlation with the degree of hearing loss in patients with MD, whereas M5 showed the highest diagnostic performance.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]