Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Visibility of Sutures of the Orbit and Periorbital Region Using Multidetector Computed Tomography

  • Gufler, Hubert (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg) ;
  • Preib, Markus (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg) ;
  • Koesling, Sabrina (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg)
  • Received : 2013.11.18
  • Accepted : 2014.07.16
  • Published : 2014.12.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: Knowledge of cranial suture morphology is crucial in emergency medicine, forensic medicine, and maxillofacial reconstructive surgery. This study assessed the visibility of sutures of the orbit and periorbital region on multidetector computed tomography. Materials and Methods: Multidetector computed tomography scans of 200 patients (127 males, 73 females; mean age 51.3 years; range, 6-92 years) were evaluated retrospectively. The slice thicknesses varied from 0.5 to 1 mm, and the tube current from 25 to 370 mAs, depending on the CT indication. The visibility of sutures was estimated according to a 4-point scale from "not visible" to "well visible". The chi-squared test was used to test the association of the visibility of sutures with the slice thickness, tube current, and age of patients. Statistical significance was assumed at p < 0.05. Results: Overall, best visibility was found for the sutura frontozygomatica (98%), sutura frontonasalis (88.5%), and sutura sphenozygomatica (71.5%), followed by the sutura zygomaticomaxillaris (65.8%), sutura temporozygomatica (41.8%), sutura frontomaxillaris (44.5%), and sutura sphenofrontalis (31%). Poor visibility was found for the sutura frontolacrimalis (16.8%) and sutura frontoethmoidalis (1.3%). The sutura ethmoidomaxillaris, sutura lacrimomaxillaris, and sutura ethmoidolacrimalis were not visible. Conclusion: Although the sutures of the superior, lateral, and inferior orbit are well visible, those of the medial orbit are poorly visible on CT scans.

Keywords

References

  1. Harth S, Obert M, Ramsthaler F, Reuss C, Traupe H, Verhoff MA. Ossification degrees of cranial sutures determined with flat-panel computed tomography: narrowing the age estimate with extrema. J Forensic Sci 2010;55:690-694 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01342.x
  2. Madeline LA, Elster AD. Suture closure in the human chondrocranium: CT assessment. Radiology 1995;196:747-756 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.196.3.7644639
  3. Vannier MW, Pilgram TK, Marsh JL, Kraemer BB, Rayne SC, Gado MH, et al. Craniosynostosis: diagnostic imaging with three-dimensional CT presentation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:1861-1869
  4. Sim SY, Yoon SH, Kim SY. Quantitative analysis of developmental process of cranial suture in korean infants. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2012;51:31-36 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2012.51.1.31
  5. Choudhary AK, Jha B, Boal DK, Dias M. Occipital sutures and its variations: the value of 3D-CT and how to differentiate it from fractures using 3D-CT? Surg Radiol Anat 2010;32:807-816 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-010-0633-5
  6. Bademci G, Kendi T, Agalar F. Persistent metopic suture can mimic the skull fractures in the emergency setting? Neurocirugia (Astur) 2007;18:238-240 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1130-1473(07)70288-9
  7. Furuya Y, Edwards MS, Alpers CE, Tress BM, Ousterhout DK, Norman D. Computerized tomography of cranial sutures. Part 1: comparison of suture anatomy in children and adults. J Neurosurg 1984;61:53-58 https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1984.61.1.0053
  8. Tack D, Widelec J, De Maertelaer V, Bailly JM, Delcour C, Gevenois PA. Comparison between low-dose and standard-dose multidetector CT in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:939-944 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.4.1810939
  9. Wang Q, Strait DS, Dechow PC. Fusion patterns of craniofacial sutures in rhesus monkey skulls of known age and sex from Cayo Santiago. Am J Phys Anthropol 2006;131:469-485 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20481
  10. Dorandeu A, Coulibaly B, Piercecchi-Marti MD, Bartoli C, Gaudart J, Baccino E, et al. Age-at-death estimation based on the study of frontosphenoidal sutures. Forensic Sci Int 2008;177:47-51 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.10.012
  11. Todd TW, Lyon DW Jr. Cranial suture closure. Its progress and age relationship. Part II. Ectocranial closure in adult males of white stock. Am J Phys Anthrop 1925;8:23-45 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330080103
  12. Mann RW, Jantz RL, Bass WM, Willey PS. Maxillary suture obliteration: a visual method for estimating skeletal age. J Forensic Sci 1991;36:781-791
  13. Beauthier JP, Lefevre P, Meunier M, Orban R, Polet C, Werquin JP, et al. Palatine sutures as age indicator: a controlled study in the elderly. J Forensic Sci 2010;55:153-158 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01237.x
  14. Ajmani ML, Mittal RK, Jain SP. Incidence of the metopic suture in adult Nigerian skulls. J Anat 1983;137(Pt 1):177-183
  15. Agarwal SK, Malhotra VK, Tewari SP. Incidence of the metopic suture in adult Indian crania. Acta Anat (Basel) 1979;105:469-474 https://doi.org/10.1159/000145154
  16. Baaten PJ, Haddad M, Abi-Nader K, Abi-Ghosn A, Al-Kutoubi A, Jurjus AR. Incidence of metopism in the Lebanese population. Clin Anat 2003;16:148-151 https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.10050
  17. Erog˘lu S. The frequency of metopism in Anatolian populations dated from the Neolithic to the first quarter of the 20th century. Clin Anat 2008;21:471-478 https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.20663
  18. Lagravère MO, Gordon JM, Flores-Mir C, Carey J, Heo G, Major PW. Cranial base foramen location accuracy and reliability in cone-beam computerized tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e203-e210 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.027

Cited by

  1. Diffusion Weighted Imaging for Differentiating Benign from Malignant Orbital Tumors: Diagnostic Performance of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Based on Region of Interest Selection Method vol.17, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.650