Do Contemporary Temporal Bone Fracture Classification Systems Reflect Concurrent Intracranial and Cervical Spine Injuries?

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati/Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
The Laryngoscope (Impact Factor: 2.14). 05/2011; 121(5):929-32. DOI: 10.1002/lary.21718
Source: PubMed


Temporal bone fractures (TBFs) are a frequent manifestation of head trauma. We investigated the prevalence of concurrent intracranial injuries (ICIs) and cervical spine injuries (CSIs) in a series of patients with TBFs and attempted to identify significant associations between current TBF classification systems and either ICI or CSI.
Retrospective case series with chart review.
The records of all patients ≥18 years of age diagnosed with a basilar skull fracture, including TBF, at a level I trauma center from 2004 to 2009 were reviewed. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores were collected. Imaging studies were reviewed to classify TBF using the traditional longitudinal-transverse-mixed and otic capsule-sparing versus -involving systems and identify concurrent ICI and CSI.
Of 1,279 patients, 202 (15.8%) met inclusion criteria. There were 160 (79.2%) males. Sixteen (7.9%) patients had bilateral TBFs. Falls (n = 66, 32.7%) represented the most common mechanism for TBF. Longitudinal (n = 96, 44.0%) and otic capsule-sparing (n = 209, 95.9%) fractures were the most prevalent subtypes. There were 184 (91.1%) patients who sustained ICI and 18 (8.9%) who demonstrated CSI. Longitudinal, transverse, mixed, otic capsule-sparing, or otic capsule-involving TBF subtypes had no statistically significant associations with mechanism of injury, GCS score, or concomitant ICI or CSI.
More than 90% of patients sustaining TBF presented with concomitant ICI, and 9% sustained CSI. Current TBF classification systems do not correlate with these outcomes. A more sophisticated, multidisciplinary classification system encompassing radiographic and clinical findings may better predict neurologic, neuro-otologic, and skull base complications.

Download full-text


Available from: Rebecca S Cornelius, Apr 01, 2015
1 Follower
17 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Temporal bone fractures are traditionally classified as transverse, longitudinal or mixed. Since these categories have shown little association with clinical symptoms, new classifications have been introduced, including those related to the involvement of the petrous bone and otic capsule. We have formulated a new classification based on the involvement of four parts of the temporal bone (squama, tympanic, mastoid, and petrous) and assessed which of these classification systems is the most rational using a retrospective chart review in hospital settings (KyungHee Medical Center, Seoul, Korea and Samsung Changwon Hospital, Changwon, Korea). The association between each classification and clinical symptoms was examined by analyzing temporal bone computed tomography scans of 129 patients diagnosed as temporal bone fractures over the past 7 years. Using the traditional classification, there was a significant correlation between transverse fractures and the incidence of sensorineural hearing loss. Patients with petrous bone fractures had significantly higher incidence rates of sensorineural hearing loss, vertigo, and eardrum perforation than patients without petrous bone involvement. Involvement of the otic capsule was significantly associated with sensorineural hearing loss and the severity of hearing loss. The associations of the traditional classification and the classification according to the involvement of the otic capsule, four parts of temporal bone with clinical symptoms were not high. Petrous bone fractures were significantly associated with sensorineural hearing loss, vertigo, and eardrum perforation, suggesting that this classification may be optimally associated with clinical symptoms including hearing and the results of otological examination.
    Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 11/2011; 269(8):1893-9. DOI:10.1007/s00405-011-1849-7 · 1.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pneumolabyrinth is a rare inner ear clinical manifestation. To date, only about 50 cases have been reported-all as case reports. Consequently, the rate and clinical characteristics of pneumolabyrinth have not been evaluated. Of the 38, 568 patients who visited our emergency department for head trauma, 466 underwent temporal bone computed tomography (CT). One hundred seventy-five patients had temporal bone fracture (13 bilateral temporal bone fractures; 188 ears with temporal bone fractures), and 14 patients had pneumolabyrinth (15 ears with pneumolabyrinth; 1 bilateral case). A retrospective review of their medical records and radiologic findings was performed. Temporal bone fractures were classified by two different systems: the traditional classification and an otic capsule-based classification. Pneumolabyrinth occurred in 8.0% of all temporal bone fractures, 4.0% of longitudinal temporal bone fractures, 16.1% of transverse or mixed temporal bone fractures, and 48.4% of otic capsule-violating temporal bone fractures. In all cases, pneumolabyrinth was found on CT, which was performed within 3 days, but not on follow-up CT performed 5 days or longer after head trauma. All patients complained of hearing loss and dizziness. Hearing in most patients (83.3%) did not improve, whereas dizziness improved in 91.7% of patients. Air was located only in the vestibule or semicircular canal in 53.3% and in the vestibular or semicircular canal and cochlea in 46.6% of ears with pneumolabyrinth. The initial hearing threshold and recovery rate using pure-tone audiometry were not different according to the air location in the inner ear. Pneumolabyrinth was more common than expected; we believe that the timing of evaluation affects its rarity. Pneumolabyrinth was detected in nearly 50% of patients with otic capsule-violating temporal bone fractures when CT scanning was performed early after trauma.
    Ontology & Neurotology 11/2014; 36(6). DOI:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000662 · 1.79 Impact Factor