↓ Skip to main content

False Computed Tomography Findings in Bilateral Choanal Atresia

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
False Computed Tomography Findings in Bilateral Choanal Atresia
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, December 2015
DOI 10.1055/s-0035-1570314
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ezzeddin Elsheikh, Mohammad Waheed El-Anwar

Abstract

Introduction Choanal atresia (CA) is a challenging surgical problem defined as a failure in the development of communication between the nasal cavity and nasopharynx. Objective The objective of this study is to describe computed tomography (CT) findings in cases with bilateral choanal atresia. Methods The study involved performing axial and coronal non-contrast CT scanning with 2-3 mm sections on14 neonates that had bilateral CA. We used fiberoptic nasal endoscopy to confirm the diagnosis. We evaluated coronal CT to study the skull base area in such neonates. Results This study included 14 neonates with bilateral CA; with mean age of 7 ± 3.5 days. Mixed atretic plates were found in 12 (85.7%) cases while two (14.3%) had pure bony atresia. Isolated CA was detected in 9 cases (64.3%) and 5 (35.7%) cases had associated anomalies. Coronal CT showed soft tissue density in the nasal cavity that appeared to extend through an apparent defect in the nasal roof (cribriform plate), falsely diagnosed by radiologists as associated encephalocele. At the time of surgical repair, all patients showed thick tenacious mucous secretions in both nasal cavities and revealed no encephalocele. Nasal roof remained intact in all cases. Conclusion The thick secretion of bilateral CA could give a false encephalocele appearance on the CT. It is highly recommended to perform proper suction of the nasal cavity of suspected CA cases just before CT scanning.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 18%
Student > Postgraduate 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 64%
Energy 1 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,413,129
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#307
of 646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#328,257
of 390,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 646 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.