Evidence Hub

CT and MR imaging of the paranasal sinuses in cystic fibrosis. Correlation with microbiological and histopathological results

Eggesbø HB, Ringertz S, Haanaes OC, Dølvik S, Erichsen A, Stiris M, Kolmannskog F

Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987), 1999

10 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare CT and MR findings of the paranasal sinuses in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) with microbiology and histopathology. Further, to compare microbiology from the maxillary sinuses, nasopharynx and sputum.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: CT and MR imaging of the paranasal sinuses were performed in 10 CF patients. Endoscopy and maxillary sinus aspirates were obtained (guided by the MR findings) and analyzed microbiologically and histologically. Samples from the nasopharynx and sputum were analyzed microbiologically.

RESULTS: CT and MR were equal in displaying the extent of soft tissue masses, which at CT were homogeneous, while MR showed heterogeneous signals. MR images also demonstrated circumscribed areas with signal void at the STIR sequence with corresponding high to intermediate signal at the T1-weighted sequence. P. aeruginosa was frequently cultured from these areas which we named the "black hole sign". Maxillary sinus cultures revealed the same bacteria as nasopharynx and sputum cultures combined.

CONCLUSION: MR images were superior to CT in differentiating soft tissue masses in the paranasal sinuses in CF patients. Bacteria with potential for specialized iron uptake mechanisms were present in areas with signal void at the STIR sequence. Our hypothesis is that the MR "black hole sign" can be explained by paramagnetic properties related to bacterial agents.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 10 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free