» Articles » PMID: 24980674

Diagnostic Imaging Modalities in Head and Neck Disease

Overview
Date 2014 Jul 2
PMID 24980674
Citations 28
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Because of the complex anatomy of the head and neck region, conventional projection radiography alone is unreliable and carries a high risk of misdiagnosis. The poor risk-benefit ratio of conventional radiography has led to their replacement by tomographic imaging for nearly all studies in this region.

Method: This review is based on pertinent articles retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed database (January 1980 to May 2013) as well as on the relevant guidelines from Germany and abroad.

Results: The indication for diagnostic imaging in the anatomically complex head and neck region should be established for a specific type of imaging study on the basis of a thorough clinical examination. Conventional films, though easy to obtain, often cannot answer the diagnostic question and may yield confusing information leading to misdiagnosis. Computed tomography (CT) has the best risk-benefit profile and a high diagnostic value, but low-dose protocols have not yet been put into use in all centers. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is best for bone and soft-tissue diagnosis, but consumes more resources. Digital volume tomography (DVT) is another type of three-dimensional, sectional imaging with high local resolution; the associated radiation exposure and image quality are generally both low, but may vary depending on the apparatus used. DVT cannot be used to evaluate the soft tissues. Ultrasonography can be used to evaluate superficial structures in the head and neck region; nuclear imaging can be used to evaluate thyroid disease and cancer.

Conclusion: Inflammatory, traumatic, and neoplastic diseases of the head and neck are best evaluated with cross-sectional imaging (CT, MRI) in accordance with current guidelines. Conventional x-rays should, in general, only be used for dental evaluation, with rare exceptions.

Citing Articles

Ultrasound-On-Chip With Semiconductor Silicon Chip Array for Transcutaneous Salivary Gland Injections: A Pilot Cadaver Study.

Goldrich D, Patel S, Sciscent B, Eberly H, Goyal N Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2025; 10(1):e70102.

PMID: 39968029 PMC: 11833808. DOI: 10.1002/lio2.70102.


Comparison of 96-kV and 120-kV cone-beam CT for the assessment of cochlear implants.

Burck I, Yel I, Martin S, Albrecht M, Koch V, Booz C BMC Med Imaging. 2024; 24(1):145.

PMID: 38872126 PMC: 11177440. DOI: 10.1186/s12880-024-01322-4.


Tin filter compared to low kV protocols - optimizing sinonasal imaging in computed tomography.

Schule S, Strobel J, Lorenz K, Beer M, Hackenbroch C PLoS One. 2023; 18(1):e0279907.

PMID: 36607911 PMC: 9821404. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279907.


Evaluating the Image Quality of Neck Structures Scanned on Chest CT with Low-Concentration-Iodine Contrast Media.

Kim J, Kim J, Oh S, Kim H Tomography. 2022; 8(6):2854-2863.

PMID: 36548531 PMC: 9785131. DOI: 10.3390/tomography8060239.


Sinogenic Orbital Complications.

Cohnen M, Klingebiel R, Langner S, Lell M, Rohde S Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2022; 119(27-28):493.

PMID: 36342099 PMC: 9664979. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0187.


References
1.
Eggesbo H, Ringertz S, Haanaes O, Dolvik S, Erichsen A, Stiris M . CT and MR imaging of the paranasal sinuses in cystic fibrosis. Correlation with microbiological and histopathological results. Acta Radiol. 1999; 40(2):154-62. DOI: 10.3109/02841859909177731. View

2.
GARCIA D, Corbett M, Eberly S, Joyce M, Le H, Karibo J . Radiographic imaging studies in pediatric chronic sinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1994; 94(3 Pt 1):523-30. DOI: 10.1016/0091-6749(94)90209-7. View

3.
Lloyd D, Carty H, Patterson M, Butcher C, Roe D . Predictive value of skull radiography for intracranial injury in children with blunt head injury. Lancet. 1997; 349(9055):821-4. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)09356-7. View

4.
Diederichs C, Engelke W, Richter B, Hermann K, Oestmann J . Must radiation dose for CT of the maxilla and mandible be higher than that for conventional panoramic radiography?. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996; 17(9):1758-60. PMC: 8338279. View

5.
Schuknecht B, Simmen D . [State of the Art. Diagnostic imaging of paranasal sinus diseases]. Laryngorhinootologie. 2002; 81(2):126-146. DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-23114. View