Diagnostic accuracy of maxillofacial trauma two-dimensional and three-dimensional computed tomographic scans: comparison of oral surgeons, head and neck surgeons, plastic surgeons, and neuroradiologists.

Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif, USA.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.33). 06/2011; 127(6):2432-40. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318213a1fe
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The authors' objectives were to study differences in diagnostic accuracy between two- and three-dimensional computed tomographic scans and among the specialties of plastic surgery, head and neck surgery, oral surgery, and neuroradiology, since this had not previously been done.
Four groups of subspecialists completed time-proctored tests of 20 maxillofacial trauma scans with zygomatic arch, zygomatic complex, orbital, Le Fort I, II, III, mandibular and panfacial fractures from five institutions (n = 40). Accuracy of diagnosis and indication for surgery, efficiency, and preference were assessed. Comparison between two- and three-dimensional scans, between expert (experienced attending) versus novice (resident/fellow), and among the four subspecialties was performed.
For two- and three-dimensional scans, two-dimensional was more accurate for orbital floor/medial wall (40 percent and 34 percent) and frontal sinus (26 percent for diagnostic) fractures. Two-dimensional examinations took 2.3 times longer but were preferred (85 percent). Experts and novices had similar accuracy with three-dimensional scanning, but experts were more accurate with the two-dimensional scanning. Experts were 3.3 times faster with two-dimensional scanning but not with three-dimensional scanning. Accuracy of diagnosis among subspecialists was similar, except that oral surgery was less accurate with orbitozygomatic fractures (79 percent versus 90 to 92 percent); neuroradiology was less accurate with indications for surgery (65 percent versus 87 to 93 percent).
Differences in diagnostic accuracy exist between two- and three-dimensional maxillofacial scans and between expert and novice readers but not between subspecialties. Combined modalities are preferred.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) reformations were obtained in 15 patients presenting with facial injuries of differing severity. The 3D images were compared with standard radiographs and high resolution CT, including multiplanar reformations, and assessed under the headings of fracture detection, extent and displacement using a simple scoring system. 3D was valuable in severe trauma with multiple fractures, providing a clear demonstration of fraction extent and fragment displacement. 3D was much less useful in minor trauma in which little or no fragment displacement had occurred, and demonstrated fewer fractures overall than either radiography or CT in all categories of facial injury. When used as part of a high resolution CT examination 3D imaging can provide useful information to both radiologist and surgeon in cases of severe facial trauma.
    Clinical Radiology 10/1987; 38(5):523-6. · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Computed tomographic (CT) scanning offers a simple, fast, and accurate study of complex maxillofacial trauma especially in the patient with multiple injuries. At the time of CT brain scanning, the facial bones can be scanned with only minimal extra time. High-resolution scanning provides excellent bony detail equal to or better than complex-motion tomography with the advantage of better contrast resolution as well. Application of craniofacial surgical techniques is facilitated by the accurate display of the nature and extent of fracturing. Surgical findings of extent of fracturing correlate better with high-resolution scanning than with plain films and conventional tomography.
    American Journal of Neuroradiology 01/1983; 4(3):495-8. · 3.68 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study compares the usefulness of axial computed tomography (CT) with two-dimensional (2D) reformats and three-dimensionally (3D) rendered CT data in the treatment planning and management of patients. Twenty-nine patients who had been studied with CT were grouped into the following four clinical problems: 1) temporomandibular joint assessment (n = 8), 2) growth and development assessment (n = 4), 3) posttrauma and postoperative assessment (n = 13), 4) "other" (n = 4). The clinicians who treated these patients were surveyed for their opinions of the usefulness of CT with and without 2D/3D reformatting. In a majority of the cases within each of the four clinical groups, the clinicians believed that 2D and/or 3D reformatting of the CT data provided additional useful information for patient management. In most of the cases, 3D imaging provided information in addition to that provided by the axial or reformatted 2D images. 2D and 3D CT images can be useful to the clinician in diagnosis and treatment planning. These methods enhance the accuracy of diagnostic decisions and the establishment of appropriate treatment plans.
    Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 05/1995; 53(4):375-86. · 1.28 Impact Factor