1.Can ultra-low-dose computed tomography reliably diagnose and classify maxillofacial fractures in the clinical routine?
Gerlig WIDMANN ; Marcel DANGL ; Elisa LUTZ ; Bernhard FLECKENSTEIN ; Vincent OFFERMANNS ; Eva-Maria GASSNER ; Wolfgang PUELACHER ; Lukas SALBRECHTER
Imaging Science in Dentistry 2023;53(1):69-75
Purpose:
Maxillofacial trauma predominantly affects young adults between 20 and 40 years of age. Although radioprotection is a legal requirement, the significant potential of dose reduction in computed tomography (CT) is still underused in the clinical routine. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether maxillofacial fractures can be reliably detected and classified using ultra-low-dose CT.
Materials and Methods:
CT images of 123 clinical cases with maxillofacial fractures were classified by two readers using the AOCOIAC software and compared with the corresponding results from post-treatment images. In group 1, consisting of 97 patients with isolated facial trauma, pre-treatment CT images at different dose levels (volumetric computed tomography dose index: ultra-low dose, 2.6 mGy; low dose, <10 mGy; and regular dose, <20 mGy) were compared with post-treatment cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). In group 2, consisting of 31 patients with complex midface fractures, pre-treatment shock room CT images were compared with post-treatment CT at different dose levels or CBCT. All images were presented in random order and classified by 2 readers blinded to the clinical results. All cases with an unequal classification were re-evaluated.
Results:
In both groups, ultra-low-dose CT had no clinically relevant effect on fracture classification. Fourteen cases in group 2 showed minor differences in the classification code, which were no longer obvious after comparing the images directly to each other.
Conclusion
Ultra-low-dose CT images allowed the correct diagnosis and classification of maxillofacial fractures. These results might lead to a substantial reconsideration of current reference dose levels.
2.Success and Complication Rates After Sacral Neuromodulation for Fecal Incontinence and Constipation: A Single-center Follow-up Study
Bernhard WIDMANN ; Christian GALATA ; Rene WARSCHKOW ; Ulrich BEUTNER ; Onder ÖGREDICI ; Franc H HETZER ; Bruno M SCHMIED ; Stefan POST ; Lukas MARTI
Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2019;25(1):159-170
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sustainability of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) success in patients with fecal incontinence (FI) and/or constipation. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients who received SNM therapy for FI and/or constipation between 2006 and 2015. Success rates, complications and reintervention rates were assessed after up to 10 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Electrodes for test stimulation were implanted in 101 patients, of whom 79 (78.2%) received permanent stimulation. The mean follow-up was 4.4 ± 3.0 years. At the end of follow-up, 57 patients (72.2%) were still receiving SNM. The 5-year success rate for FI and isolated constipation was 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.1–97.0%) and 31.2% (95% CI, 10.2–95.5%), respectively (P < 0.001). In patients with FI, involuntary evacuations per week decreased > 50% in 76.1% of patients (95% CI, 67.6–86.2%) after 5 years. A lead position at S3 was associated with an improved outcome (P = 0.04). Battery exchange was necessary in 23 patients (29.1%), with a median battery life of 6.2 years. Reinterventions due to complications were necessary in 24 patients (30.4%). For these patients, the 5-year success rate was 89.0% (95% CI, 75.3–100.0%) compared to 78.4% (95% CI, 67.2–91.4%) for patients without reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: SNM offers an effective sustainable treatment for FI. For constipation, lasting success of SNM is limited and is thus not recommended. Reinterventions are necessary but do not impede treatment success.
Constipation
;
Electric Stimulation
;
Electrodes
;
Fecal Incontinence
;
Follow-Up Studies
;
Humans
;
Prospective Studies
;
Retrospective Studies

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail