Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomographic Findings After Temporal Lobe Injury

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomographic Findings After Temporal Lobe Injury We read with great interest the article by Jones et al1 entitled "Temporal Lobe Injury in Temporal Bone Fractures," which appeared in the February 2000 issue of the ARCHIVES. Although there are some terminological and methodological parts that need reevaluation, the article generally contains some new and significant findings. Table 2 states that no temporal bone fractures were found on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. However, Table 1 states there was a right longitudinal temporal bone fracture in patient 1 that was detected by MRI. The term enhancement means pathological opacification after contrast administration on computed tomographic (CT) or MRI imaging scans. In the "Patients and Methods" section, the authors stated that "all patients were evaluated using non–contrast-enhanced CT scans. . . ." But the terms ipsilateral meningeal enhancement, contralateral meningeal enhancement, and labyrinthine enhancement were used in Table 2. However, no contrast was given on CT examination, whereas contrast was administered on MRI examination. Jones and colleagues compared the results of the non–contrast-enhanced CT scans and the contrast-enhanced MRI scans. We believe that it would have been better to compare the results of contrast-enhanced CT scans with those of contrast-enhanced MRI scans or to report the results only of the MRI scans. Section E of the Figure showed a diffuse enhancement within the dura mater on the right side. However, we also observed a localized contralateral dural enhancement that was not mentioned in the figure legend. Detection of the contralateral enhancement by the authors is an interesting and important finding. This means that there may be contralateral meningeal and dural enhancement after ipsilateral contusions. However, the authors did not give an explanation for the contralateral meningeal and dural contrast enhancement on postcontrast MRI scans. We believe that an explanation of this condition, as well as of its clinical significance, would be a valuable contribution. The findings related to the facial nerve, as well as the detection of a subclinical temporal lobe contusion, are also new and important. References 1. Jones RMRothman MIGray WCZoarski GHMattox DE Temporal lobe injury in termporal bone fractures. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2000;126:131-135.Google Scholar http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery American Medical Association

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomographic Findings After Temporal Lobe Injury

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/magnetic-resonance-imaging-and-computed-tomographic-findings-after-nruwx8nkwU

References (12)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0886-4470
eISSN
1538-361X
DOI
10.1001/archotol.127.3.339
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We read with great interest the article by Jones et al1 entitled "Temporal Lobe Injury in Temporal Bone Fractures," which appeared in the February 2000 issue of the ARCHIVES. Although there are some terminological and methodological parts that need reevaluation, the article generally contains some new and significant findings. Table 2 states that no temporal bone fractures were found on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. However, Table 1 states there was a right longitudinal temporal bone fracture in patient 1 that was detected by MRI. The term enhancement means pathological opacification after contrast administration on computed tomographic (CT) or MRI imaging scans. In the "Patients and Methods" section, the authors stated that "all patients were evaluated using non–contrast-enhanced CT scans. . . ." But the terms ipsilateral meningeal enhancement, contralateral meningeal enhancement, and labyrinthine enhancement were used in Table 2. However, no contrast was given on CT examination, whereas contrast was administered on MRI examination. Jones and colleagues compared the results of the non–contrast-enhanced CT scans and the contrast-enhanced MRI scans. We believe that it would have been better to compare the results of contrast-enhanced CT scans with those of contrast-enhanced MRI scans or to report the results only of the MRI scans. Section E of the Figure showed a diffuse enhancement within the dura mater on the right side. However, we also observed a localized contralateral dural enhancement that was not mentioned in the figure legend. Detection of the contralateral enhancement by the authors is an interesting and important finding. This means that there may be contralateral meningeal and dural enhancement after ipsilateral contusions. However, the authors did not give an explanation for the contralateral meningeal and dural contrast enhancement on postcontrast MRI scans. We believe that an explanation of this condition, as well as of its clinical significance, would be a valuable contribution. The findings related to the facial nerve, as well as the detection of a subclinical temporal lobe contusion, are also new and important. References 1. Jones RMRothman MIGray WCZoarski GHMattox DE Temporal lobe injury in termporal bone fractures. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2000;126:131-135.Google Scholar

Journal

Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck SurgeryAmerican Medical Association

Published: Mar 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.