• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Intrathecal Gd-MRC demonstrated to be the most useful diagnostic method to detect CSF rhinorrhea

by Linda Kossoff • June 12, 2023

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Intrathecal Gd-MRC was demonstrated to be the most useful diagnostic method to detect CSF rhinorrhea.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic CSF leakage is the most common cause of CSF rhinorrhea. Meningitis develops in 10% to 25% of patients with unresolved leakage, resulting in death in 10% of these cases. Nasal endoscopy has limitations for confirming CSF rhinorrhea and localizing leak points. Radiological imaging methods play important roles for this purpose.

You Might Also Like

  • Patients with Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea More Likely to have Obstructive Sleep Apnea
  • Lingering Issues: Challenges remain in repairing CSF leaks
  • Nasal Lavage May Be a Valid Alternative to Swab Method in SARS-CoV-2 Detection
  • Surgical Issues: Insights into UPPP, CPAP Use, and CSF Leaks
Explore This Issue
June 2023

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis.

SETTING: Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, N.Y.

SYNOPSIS: Researchers conducted a multi-database search up to December 2021 to compare the diagnostic accuracy among seven radiological methods in analyzing CSF rhinorrhea: computed tomography (CT), CT cisternography (CTC), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance cisternography (MRC), CT + MRI, radionuclide cisternography, and intrathecal gadolinium (Gd)-MRC. A total of 23 trials, comprising 900 subjects, were included in the final analysis. Outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Both a traditional pairwise meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis were performed. Results showed that all imaging modalities had greater diagnostic accuracy than CT, apart from CTC, which had lower sensitivity. There were no significant differences in specificity among the different methods. Only Gd-MRC was shown to be significantly superior to other imaging methods regarding sensitivity and accuracy. However, authors note that each diagnostic method has its own characteristics, and thus advantages and disadvantages, which should be considered in clinical application. Researchers stress that the diagnostic modality should be selected with clinical condition and resource availability in mind. Study limitations included differences among trials in equipment quality and techniques, which may have affected diagnostic accuracy.

CITATION: Hwang SH, Kim SW, Kim DH. Efficacy of imaging methods in the detection and diagnosis of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea. Laryngoscope. 2023;133:1281-1287.

Filed Under: Literature Reviews, Practice Focus, Rhinology, Rhinology Tagged With: cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea, diagnosticsIssue: June 2023

You Might Also Like:

  • Patients with Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea More Likely to have Obstructive Sleep Apnea
  • Lingering Issues: Challenges remain in repairing CSF leaks
  • Nasal Lavage May Be a Valid Alternative to Swab Method in SARS-CoV-2 Detection
  • Surgical Issues: Insights into UPPP, CPAP Use, and CSF Leaks

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Would you choose a concierge physician as your PCP?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • A Journey Through Pay Inequity: A Physician’s Firsthand Account

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • Excitement Around Gene Therapy for Hearing Restoration
    • “Small” Acts of Kindness
    • How To: Endoscopic Total Maxillectomy Without Facial Skin Incision
    • Science Communities Must Speak Out When Policies Threaten Health and Safety
    • Observation Most Cost-Effective in Addressing AECRS in Absence of Bacterial Infection

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939